Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24791749›Full record

ReviewQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2014

Defining recovery in chronic fatigue syndrome: a critical review.

Jenna L Adamowicz, Indre Caikauskaite, Fred Friedberg

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Depressive and anxiety symptoms in current, previous, and no history of ME/CFS: NHIS 2022 analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The fragile process of Homecoming - Young women in recovery from severe ME/CFS.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Health system support among patients with ME/CFS in Switzerland.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jenna L AdamowiczDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stony Brook University, Putnam Hall/South Campus, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-8790, USA, Jenna.Adamowicz@stonybrook.edu.
Indre Caikauskaite
Fred Friedberg
Stony Brook University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), the lack of consensus on how recovery should be defined or interpreted has generated controversy and confusion. The purpose of this paper was to systematically review, compare, and evaluate the definitions of recovery reported in the CFS literature and to make recommendations about the scope of recovery assessments.

methodsA search was done using the MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases for peer review papers that contained the search terms "chronic fatigue syndrome" and "recovery," "reversal," "remission," and/or "treatment response."

resultsFrom the 22 extracted studies, recovery was operationally defined by reference with one or more of these domains: (1) pre-morbid functioning; (2) both fatigue and function; (3) fatigue (or related symptoms) alone; (4) function alone; and/or (5) brief global assessment. Almost all of the studies measuring recovery in CFS did so differently. The brief global assessment was the most common outcome measure used to define recovery. Estimates of recovery ranged from 0 to 66 % in intervention studies and 2.6 to 62 % in naturalistic studies.

conclusionsGiven that the term "recovery" was often based on limited assessments and less than full restoration of health, other more precise and accurate labels (e.g., clinically significant improvement) may be more appropriate and informative. In keeping with common understandings of the term recovery, we recommend a consistent definition that captures a broad-based return to health with assessments of both fatigue and function as well as the patient's perceptions of his/her recovery status.

Indexed as

ConsensusFatigueFatigue Syndrome, ChronicFemaleHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID24791749
OpenAlexW2066953531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.