ArticleJRSM short reports2013
Views on the nature of chronic fatigue syndrome: content analysis.
Article in JRSM short reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Placebos as a Source of Agency: Evidence and Implications.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Review
- Are ME/CFS Patient Organizations "Militant"? : Patient Protest in a Medical Controversy.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
- Rheumatoid Arthritis Portrayal by UK National Newspapers 2011-2016: A Service User - Led Thematic Analysis of Language Used.BMC rheumatology · 2018Article
- Generating a Social Movement Online Community through an Online Discourse: The Case of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.The Journal of medical humanities · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesChronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), has provoked much controversy and led to arguments between the medical profession and patient organizations. A particular focus for debate is the categorization of the condition as physical or psychological in its nature. The aim of this study was to compare how the written media, patient organizations and medical authorities regard the illness.
designContent analysis of newspaper articles, ME patient organization websites, and medical websites and textbooks were assessed by two independent assessors.
settingThree national UK newspapers, UK ME websites, and UK medical websites and textbooks, were accessed during 2010.
participants146 source files were scored from 36 patients' organizations, 72 media articles and 38 medical authorities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURED: The overall opinion of an article or website was rated using a five point Likert scale, from 'extremely psychological' (scored as 1), 'moderately psychological' (2), 'both psychological and physical' (3), 'moderately physical' (4) or 'extremely physical' (5).
resultsEighty-nine percent (32 of 36) of ME patient organizations considered the illness to be physical, compared with 58% (42/72) of newspaper articles, and 24% (9/38) of medical authorities. Sixty-three percent (24/38) of medical authorities regarded the illness as both physical and psychological. The inter-group differences of the Likert scores were statistically significant (χ(2) = 27.37, 2 df, P < 0.001).
conclusionThe considerable disagreement, particularly between ME patient organizations and medical authorities, may help to explain the gulf in understanding between doctors and patients and the consequent reluctance of some patients to engage in behavioural treatments.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.