ReviewFrontiers in neurology2025
Assessment of symptoms in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: a comparative study of existing scales.
Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a multifaceted disorder characterized by persistent fatigue, post-exertional malaise (PEM), cognitive dysfunction, sleep disturbance, pain, psychological distress, orthostatic intolerance, and impaired multidimensional health status and functioning. In the absence of reliable biomarkers, standardized symptom assessment is essential for accurate diagnosis and comparability across studies. This narrative literature review synthesized studies identified through PubMed and Web of Science up to June 2024, covering assessment instruments across major ME/CFS symptom domains. Tools were evaluated for their psychometric validity, clinical applicability, and key limitations. Overall, existing scales demonstrate acceptable reliability but vary in sensitivity and disease specificity. Harmonized, multidimensional, and digitally or objectively validated measures are needed to improve diagnostic precision, longitudinal monitoring, and clinical translation in ME/CFS.
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.