Trial reportPloS one2017
Economic evaluation of multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment versus cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome in adults - a meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of Interventions for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Pooled it
- CBT to reduce healthcare use for medically unexplained symptoms: systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of interventions for medically unexplained symptoms: A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Comparison of cognitive behaviour therapy versus activity management, both delivered remotely, to treat paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: the UK FITNET-NHS RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Trial
- Who benefits from multidisciplinary care in functional somatic disorders? Identifying cost-effective patient selection through diagnostic classification groups.Israel journal of health policy research · 2026Article
- Trends and Hotspots in the Health Economics Evaluation of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
- Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Review
- Work Rehabilitation and Medical Retirement for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients. A Review and Appraisal of Diagnostic Strategies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Increased risk of chronic fatigue syndrome following psoriasis: a nationwide population-based cohort study.Journal of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment is not effective for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: A review of the FatiGo trial.Health psychology openReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA multi-centre RCT has shown that multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment (MRT) is more effective in reducing fatigue over the long-term in comparison with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but evidence on its cost-effectiveness is lacking.
aimTo compare the cost-effectiveness of MRT versus CBT for patients with CFS from a societal perspective.
methodsA multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing MRT with CBT was conducted among 122 patients with CFS diagnosed using the 1994 criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and aged between 18 and 60 years. The societal costs (healthcare costs, patient and family costs, and costs for loss of productivity), fatigue severity, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured over a follow-up period of one year. The main outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was fatigue measured by the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS). The main outcome of the cost-utility analysis was the QALY based on the EuroQol-5D-3L utilities. Sensitivity analyses were performed, and uncertainty was calculated using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and cost-effectiveness planes.
resultsThe data of 109 patients (57 MRT and 52 CBT) were analyzed. MRT was significantly more effective in reducing fatigue at 52 weeks. The mean difference in QALY between the treatments was not significant (0.09, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.19). The total societal costs were significantly higher for patients allocated to MRT (a difference of €5,389, 95% CI: 2,488 to 8,091). MRT has a high probability of being the most cost effective, using fatigue as the primary outcome. The ICER is €856 per unit of the CIS fatigue subscale. The results of the cost-utility analysis, using the QALY, indicate that the CBT had a higher likelihood of being more cost-effective.
conclusionsThe probability of being more cost-effective is higher for MRT when using fatigue as primary outcome variable. Using QALY as the primary outcome, CBT has the highest probability of being more cost-effective.
trial registrationISRCTN77567702.
Indexed as
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.