Assessment of recovery status in chronic fatigue syndrome using normative data
- 299 Downloads
Adamowicz et al. have reviewed criteria previously employed to define recovery in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). They suggested such criteria have generally lacked stringency and consistency between studies and recommended future research should require “normalization of symptoms and functioning”.
Options regarding how “normalization of symptoms and functioning” might be operationalized for CFS cohorts are explored.
A diagnosis of CFS excludes many chronic disabling illnesses present in the general population, and CFS cohorts can almost exclusively consist of people of working age; therefore, it is suggested that thresholds for recovery should not be based on population samples which include a significant proportion of sick, disabled or elderly individuals. It is highlighted how a widely used measure in CFS research, the SF-36 physical function subscale, is not normally distributed. This is discussed in relation to how recovery was defined for a large intervention trial, the PACE trial, using a method that assumes a normal distribution. Summary data on population samples are also given, and alternative methods to assess recovery are proposed.
The “normalization of symptoms and function” holds promise as a means of defining recovery from CFS at the current time. However, care is required regarding how such requirements are operationalized, otherwise recovery rates may be overstated, and perpetuate the confusion and controversy noted by Adamowicz et al.
KeywordsChronic fatigue syndrome CFS Recovery Operational definition Normative data
Conflict of interest
- 1.Adamowicz, J. L., Caikauskaite, I., Friedberg, F. (2014). Defining recovery in chronic fatigue syndrome: a critical review. Quality of Life Research, 23(9), 2407–2416.Google Scholar
- 3.Goodwin, L., White, P. D., Hotopf, M., Stansfeld, S. A., & Clark, C. (2011). Psychopathology and physical activity as predictors of chronic fatigue syndrome in the 1958 British birth cohort: A replication study of the 1946 and 1970 birth cohorts. Annals of Epidemiology, 21(5), 343–350.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Couch, I. C. (2013). Re: PACE trial authors’ reply to letter by Kindlon. BMJ December 2 http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5963/rr/675527
- 6.White, P. D., Goldsmith, K. A., Johnson, A. L., Potts, L., Walwyn, R., DeCesare, J. C., et al. (2011). Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behavior therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): A randomized trial. The Lancet, 377(9768), 823–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Bowling, A., Bond, M., Jenkinson, C., & Lamping, D. L. (1999). Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire : Which normative data should be used ? Comparisons between the norms provided by the Omnibus Survey in Britain, the Health Survey for England and the Oxford Healthy Life Survey. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 21, 255–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.White, P. D., Goldsmith, K., Johnson, A. L., Chalder, T., Sharpe, M., & PACE Trial Management Group. (2013). Recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome after treatments given in the PACE trial. Psychological Medicine, 31, 1–9.Google Scholar
- 10.Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Social Survey Division, OPCS Omnibus Survey, November 1992 [computer file]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], September 1997. SN: 3660, doi: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-3660-1
- 11.Behavioural Epidemiology Unit. (1995). South Australian population norms for the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Status Questionnaire. Adelaide, South Australian Health Commission. http://health.adelaide.edu.au/pros/docs/reports/general/generalhealthandwellbeing_south_australian_population_norms.pdf
- 12.Ware, J. E., Jr., & Kosinski, M. (2001). SF-36 physical & mental health summary scales: A manual for users of version 1 (2nd ed.). RI Quality Metric Inc: Lincoln.Google Scholar