Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28810428›Full record

ReviewJournal of health psychology2019

How have selection bias and disease misclassification undermined the validity of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome studies?

Luis Nacul, Eliana M Lacerda, Caroline C Kingdon, Hayley Curran, Erinna W Bowman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of health psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The German Multicenter Registry for ME/CFS (MECFS-R).Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Luis NaculLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
Eliana M LacerdaLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
Caroline C KingdonLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
Hayley CurranLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
Erinna W BowmanLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.

Funding

A longitudinal immunological and virological study for ME CFS biomarker discovery (Renewal)R01AI103629 · NIAID · LONDON SCH/HYGIENE & TROPICAL MEDICINE · PI DOCKRELL, HAZEL MARGUERITE, NACUL, LUIS · 2013 to 2020
$4.1M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI103629
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome has been a controversial diagnosis, resulting in tensions between patients and professionals providing them with care. A major constraint limiting progress has been the lack of a 'gold standard' for diagnosis; with a number of imperfect clinical and research criteria used, each defining different, though overlapping, groups of people with myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome. We review basic epidemiological concepts to illustrate how the use of more specific and restrictive case definitions could improve research validity and drive progress in the field by reducing selection bias caused by diagnostic misclassification.

Indexed as

Fatigue Syndrome, ChronicHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSelection Biaschronic fatigue syndromediagnosisepidemiologymisclassificationmyalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndromeselection bias

Identifiers

PMID28810428
PMCPMC5581258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.