ArticleArchives of community medicine2022
Comparing Operationalized Approaches for Substantial Reduction of Functioning in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.
Article in Archives of community medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of ME/CFS following infectious mononucleosis: seven-year follow-up of a prospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- ME/CFS and Post-Exertional Malaise among Patients with Long COVID.Neurology international · 2022Article
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
Abstract
A core criterion for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) is a substantial reduction in functioning from pre-illness levels. Despite its ubiquity in diagnostic criteria, there is considerable debate regarding how to measure this domain. The current study assesses five distinct methods for measuring substantial reductions. The analysis used an international, aggregated dataset of patients (N = 2,368) and controls (N=359) to compare the effectiveness of each method. Four methods involved sophisticated analytic approaches using the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36; the fifth method included a single self-report item on the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ). Our main finding was that all methods produced comparable results, though the DSQ item was the most valid in differentiating patients from controls. Having a simple, reliable method to capture a substantial reduction in functioning has considerable advantages for patients and health care workers.
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.