SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome in adults - a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of non-pharmacological therapies in complementary and alternative medicine on improving fatigue levels, oxidative stress, inflammation, and endocrine levels in animal models of chronic fatigue-like conditions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Response: Commentary: Cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome in adults: a short analysis of the meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Commentary: Cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome in adults: a short analysis of the meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment efficacy of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) remains controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to understand the short-term and long-term efficacy of CBT on different outcome measures on patients with CFS, as well as explore potential adverse effects. A meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42023391926). PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched from inception to September 2024 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT in adults with CFS excluding Oxford-defined cohorts. Interventions included individual face-to-face, self-directed, and group CBT. The primary outcome was fatigue, with secondary outcomes of physical functioning, anxiety, depression, pain and quality of life. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. There were 12 studies included in this review, with 1799 total participants. All forms of CBT, when analysed together, was not found to have a statistically significant result (p = 0.12). Individual face-to-face CBT was found to have a large effect size in reducing fatigue (Cohen's d = 2.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.31, p=0.02). Self-directed CBT was found to have a large effect size in improving physical functioning (Cohen's d = -2.76, 95% CI -5.06 to -0.47, p=0.04). All other sub-analyses did not yield statistically significant results. There was inconsistent reporting of adverse effects, however no serious adverse effects were reported. High heterogeneity and incomplete reporting limit certainty. CBT as a treatment modality inherently leads to difficulties with blinding and bias. The results suggest that patients with milder disease may benefit more from self-directed CBT. Group CBT may not be as beneficial as other modalities. Guidelines provide mixed recommendations regarding CBT, therefore CBT may be offered as a supportive, non-curative option for adults with CFS. No funding was received for this review. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023391926.
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.