ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
Development and Content Validity of the Clinical Needs Assessment for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CNAME).
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo co-produce the Clinical Needs Assessment for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CNAME) with patients and clinicians, and to assess its content validity.
methodsGuided by the COSMIN guidelines, a draft CNAME was devised from relevant literature and lived experience. It was revised following piloting and cognitive interviews with the advisory groups and then completed online by people with ME. Content and face validity were assessed via deductive framework analysis of participants' feedback. Construct validity (in terms of relevance, duplication and comprehensibility) was assessed using frequencies, cross-tabulations and response rates, respectively. As the CNAME produces dichotomous (yes/no or not relevant) data, which are not summated and are not intended for repeated use, further psychometric analyses are not possible or relevant.
resultsFour hundred people with ME participated. Comprehensibility was excellent (> 97.5% item completion rate). There were no floor effects, but several items had a ceiling effect and were removed. Eight items demonstrated duplication and were combined. Participant feedback was positive, confirming that the CNAME addressed the issues that were important and relevant to them and was easy to complete.
conclusionsThe Clinical Needs Assessment for ME is a valid, feasible and acceptable measure of people with ME/CFS' clinical needs. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Development of the CNAME was a patient-led project (both the authors live with ME/CFS) and it was co-produced by people with ME/CFS and clinicians working in NHS specialist ME/CFS services. People with ME/CFS and clinicians were involved in all stages of the study-conceptualisation, design, conduct, analysis, interpretation and dissemination.
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.