Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32093722›Full record

SynthesisJournal of translational medicine2020

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).

Eun-Jin Lim, Yo-Chan Ahn, Eun-Su Jang, Si-Woo Lee, Su-Hwa Lee, Chang-Gue Son

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 295 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
295citing papers in PubMed, 18 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

295 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Recent research in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: an evidence map.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

235 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Eun-Jin LimInstitute of Bioscience and Integrative Medicine, Department of Korean Medicine, Daejeon University, 62 Daehak-ro, Dong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
Yo-Chan AhnDepartment of Health Service Management, Daejeon University, 96-3 Yongun-dong, Dong-gu, Daejeon, 300-716, Republic of Korea.
Eun-Su JangInstitute of Bioscience and Integrative Medicine, Department of Korean Medicine, Daejeon University, 62 Daehak-ro, Dong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
Si-Woo LeeDivision of Future Medicine, Korean Institute of Oriental Medicine, Yuseong-daero, 1672, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
Su-Hwa LeeThe Catholic University of Korea, Daejeon St. Mary Hospital, 64, Daeheung-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
Chang-Gue SonInstitute of Bioscience and Integrative Medicine, Department of Korean Medicine, Daejeon University, 62 Daehak-ro, Dong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea. ckson@dju.ac.kr.ORCID 0000-0003-4876-0167

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) has been emerging as a significant health issue worldwide. This study aimed to systemically assess the prevalence of CFS/ME in various aspects of analyses for precise assessment.

methodsWe systematically searched prevalence of CFS/ME from public databases from 1980 to December 2018. Data were extracted according to 7 categories for analysis: study participants, gender and age of the participants, case definition, diagnostic method, publication year, and country of the study conducted. Prevalence data were collected and counted individually for studies adopted various case definitions. We analyzed and estimated prevalence rates in various angles: average prevalence, pooled prevalence and meta-analysis of all studies.

resultsA total of 1291 articles were initially identified, and 45 articles (46 studies, 56 prevalence data) were selected for this study. Total 1085,976 participants were enrolled from community-based survey (540,901) and primary care sites (545,075). The total average prevalence was 1.40 ± 1.57%, pooled prevalence 0.39%, and meta-analysis 0.68% [95% CI 0.48-0.97]. The prevalence rates were varied by enrolled participants (gender, study participants, and population group), case definitions and diagnostic methods. For example, in the meta-analysis; women (1.36% [95% CI 0.48-0.97]) vs. men (0.86% [95% CI 0.48-0.97]), community-based samples (0.76% [95% CI 0.53-1.10]) vs. primary care sites (0.63% [95% CI 0.37-1.10]), adults ≥ 18 years (0.65% [95% CI 0.43-0.99]) vs. children and adolescents < 18 years (0.55% [95% CI 0.22-1.35]), CDC-1994 (0.89% [95% CI 0.60-1.33]) vs. Holmes (0.17% [95% CI 0.06-0.49]), and interviews (1.14% [95% CI 0.76-1.72]) vs. physician diagnosis (0.09% [95% CI 0.05-0.13]), respectively.

conclusionsThis study comprehensively estimated the prevalence of CFS/ME; 0.89% according to the most commonly used case definition CDC-1994, with women approximately 1.5 to 2 folds higher than men in all categories. However, we observed the prevalence rates are widely varied particularly by case definitions and diagnostic methods. An objective diagnostic tool is urgently required for rigorous assessment of the prevalence of CFS/ME.

Indexed as

Fatigue Syndrome, ChronicAdolescentAdultChildFemaleHumansMalePrevalenceSurveys and QuestionnairesCFSChronic fatigue syndromeME/CFSMeta-analysisPrevalenceSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32093722
PMCPMC7038594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.