SynthesisMedicine2026
Rehabilitative efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy-based intervention for chronic fatigue syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has been used for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but previous studies have shown inconsistencies and divergent long-term outcomes. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of CBT in improving fatigue, physical functioning, and psychological health in patients with CFS.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception to March 2025. Studies designed as randomized controlled trials, enrolling patients diagnosed with CFS who received CBT as a treatment intervention delivered face-to-face, in groups, or online were included. The primary outcome was the fatigue score, and the secondary outcomes were the physical function score, psychological outcomes, and adverse events. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Assessment Tool for Risk of Bias Version 2 (RoB 2; The Cochrane Collaboration). Heterogeneity was detected by subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis.
resultsFifteen randomized controlled trials with 2270 participants were involved. Meta-analysis demonstrated that CBT yielded significant posttreatment improvements across key outcomes. Fatigue severity was notably reduced, as measured by the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.57--0.32) and the Checklist Individual Strength (SMD = -0.88, 95% CI: -1.16--0.60). Physical functioning (physical function subscale of the Short Form Health Survey-36) subscale also improved significantly (SMD = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.23-0.41). Psychological health benefits were evident through reduced Symptom Checklist 90 (SMD = -0.44, 95% CI: -0.62--0.26) and specific decreases in anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-anxiety scale: SMD = -0.28, 95% CI: -0.46--0.10) and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-depression scale: SMD = -0.27, 95% CI: -0.45--0.09). Follow-up analyses confirmed sustained benefits: short-term (≤ 6 months) showed continued fatigue reduction (Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire: SMD = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.55--0.03) and improved physical function (physical function subscale of the Short Form Health Survey-36: SMD = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.03-0.58); long-term (6-24 months) maintained fatigue relief (SMD = -0.35, 95% CI: -0.50--0.19) and functional gains (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.06-0.37). Safety analysis showed no statistically significant difference in adverse event rates (odds ratio = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.36-1.01, P = .060).
conclusionBased on our results, CBT may be an effective option for CFS, but further research is warranted.
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.