ArticleBMC nursing2026
Chronic fatigue syndrome in nursing practice: a concept analysis.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNurses are essential in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) management, serving as care coordinators and patient advocates, but currently lack a unified guiding framework. CFS affects about 0.89% of the global population based on CDC-1994 criteria, with higher prevalence in women. Since its initial definition in 1988, over 25 diagnostic criteria have been introduced, leading to ongoing confusion about core symptoms and diagnosis. This inconsistency poses significant challenges for nurses, including difficulties in patient identification, inconsistent assessment approaches, and lack of standardized care pathways. A clear theoretical model is needed to improve nursing assessments, intervention planning, and care standardization.
methodsA concept analysis was conducted using the Walker and Avant's eight-step method. Eight databases were systematically searched for literature from January 1988 to December 2025. Studies on CFS definitions, diagnostic criteria, or conceptual frameworks were included if they addressed key attributes, antecedents, consequences, or measurement methods. Two graduate students and professors independently performed two-stage screening and data extraction. Multiple discussion rounds ensured analytical rigor.
resultsSixty-eight studies were included. CFS antecedents included infections, immune dysregulation, genetics, and stress. Five core attributes were identified as defining features of CFS in the reviewed literature: persistent severe fatigue, post-exertional malaise (PEM), non-restorative sleep, cognitive impairment and/or orthostatic intolerance, and multisystem involvement. Consequences involved disability, poor quality of life, psychological distress, social isolation, and economic burden. Empirical referents included diagnostic criteria, symptom scales, and functional measures.
conclusionsThis study proposed a nursing-oriented conceptual framework for CFS based on the reviewed literature, identifying five core features that may help distinguish it from general fatigue. The framework suggests plausible directions for nursing practice, including prioritizing PEM assessments, promoting energy management and pacing as potential interventions, and considering nurses as care coordinators in multidisciplinary teams. It may also contribute to CFS-focused nursing education and the development of assessment instruments. Given shared pathophysiological features reported in the literature, the framework may offer a conceptual basis for application to post-infectious fatigue conditions such as long COVID, though this transferability requires empirical validation in specific populations and clinical contexts.
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.