ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2024
[Multimodal Treatment Strategies for Homebound Patients with Severe ME/CFS: A Scoping Review].
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2024. 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.
- Guidance on Home-Based Care for People with Severe ME/CFS: A Transdisciplinary Expert Statement.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2026Article
- [Transdisciplinary Expert Statement: care guide for people severely affected by ME/CFS in home-based care].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis scoping review aims to provide an overview of previously published treatment strategies that are multimodal, rather than purely drug-based and may be considered for home- or bedbound ME/CFS patients. Thus, the focus lies upon the analyses of telemedicine as well as home treatment elements. In addition, the evaluation and assessment methods used in these studies will be further discussed.
methodsUsing the scoping review method, a literature analysis was conducted resulting in a total of 14 publications which met the predefined criteria. Inclusion was based on models applicable to housebound individuals with ME/CFS, focusing on social medicine and psychological support services rather than individual drug strategies.
resultsThe analysis demonstrated that the appropriate treatment methods were predominantly home visits (n=5) or a telemedicine format (n=7). Studies which used alternative settings were included if conversion to a telemedicine format was viable. The important factors highlighted in several studies (n=8), when considering this patient group, were individualisation and flexibility of the treatment methods, and thus the ability to address the day-to-day levels of impairment. The explicit involvement of families in the treatment plan were described in a total of six studies. In ten articles, the treatment concept was additionally evaluated, predominantly using questionnaires (n=7), whilst the questionnaires used were not consistent. Qualitative evaluations were invariably conducted using Brown and Clarke's thematic analysis (n=3).
conclusionPublications on multimodal treatment strategies for homebound ME/CFS patients are rare. However approaches using home visits or telemedicine are described. The majority of identified publications addressed the need for individualised as well as flexible patient care, whilst some were dedicated to the added value of involving the patients' family. The data outline the specific challenges associated with the care of severely affected ME/CFS patients that should also be considered in the context of research.
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.