Measuring Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: A Rapid Review.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Tergel Namsrai, Anne Parkinson, Richard Burns, Geoffrey Herkes, Mark Elisha, Katrina Chisholm, Janet Drew, Vanessa Fanning, Anne Brüstle, Hanna Suominen, Nicolas Cherbuin, Jane Desborough
{"title":"Measuring Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: A Rapid Review.","authors":"Tergel Namsrai, Anne Parkinson, Richard Burns, Geoffrey Herkes, Mark Elisha, Katrina Chisholm, Janet Drew, Vanessa Fanning, Anne Brüstle, Hanna Suominen, Nicolas Cherbuin, Jane Desborough","doi":"10.1007/s40271-025-00759-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fatigue is one of the most prevalent and debilitating symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), as people with MS describe it. It has a complex pathogenesis and often precedes the clinical symptoms of MS and potentially indicates disease progression. Given its prevalence, impact, and intricate connections to disease pathology, accurate measurement is crucial to manage and study fatigue in people with MS; however, current measurements often lack content validity. A mismatch between key aspects of fatigue and existing fatigue scales will limit these scales' ability to capture the full scope of MS-related fatigue. We aimed to examine the current evidence on MS-related fatigue to define key aspects of fatigue in the literature and compare them with the scales used to measure MS-related fatigue.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This integrated rapid review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42024505743) synthesised evidence on MS-related fatigue domains and their representation in validated scales. A systematic search was conducted on January 24, 2024, across three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest with no restriction on publication date. Eligible studies included those reporting on fatigue domains, signs and symptoms in people with MS and those on validated fatigue scales in MS. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Data was synthesised with meta-aggregation of the fatigue domains, signs, and symptoms and mapping them against the items from validated fatigue scales.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 7089 articles and included 85 studies (quantitative: 65; qualitative: 9; mixed methods: 8); 54 investigated fatigue domains, five reported fatigue scale development, and 26 focused on both. The review included 34,984 participants (9814 male; 25,126 female) with a mean age of 47.43 years (range 36-55.4). A total of 791 items related to fatigue domains, signs, symptoms, and experiences were extracted and categorised into three key areas: fatigue triggers, domains, and impacts. We identified eight fatigue triggers (physical, cognitive, psychological, social, medical, lifestyle, temporal, and environmental), five fatigue domains (general, physical, cognitive, psychosocial, and social), and five areas of fatigue impact (global, physical, cognitive, psychological, and social impacts of fatigue). Twenty-nine scales, tests, measures, and indices that measure MS-related fatigue were identified. Nineteen of these were validated by self-reported fatigue scales. The scales fully covered the domains of MS-related fatigue. However, the identified scales did not fully capture medical and lifestyle triggers, as well as psychological and global impacts. Additionally, no single scale fully encompassed all three aspects of fatigue and their corresponding subcategories.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review demonstrates the importance of integrating the subjective experiences of people with MS into research to ensure that the multidimensional aspects of MS-related fatigue, together with these people's values, needs, and preferences, are captured and used to develop useful, comprehensive, and meaningful tools designed to measure MS-related fatigue. In addition, this clearer discernment of the triggers, domains, and impacts of MS-related fatigue is critical in the clinic and research. Better tools will enable a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms, as well as tracking and managing fatigue.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00759-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Fatigue is one of the most prevalent and debilitating symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), as people with MS describe it. It has a complex pathogenesis and often precedes the clinical symptoms of MS and potentially indicates disease progression. Given its prevalence, impact, and intricate connections to disease pathology, accurate measurement is crucial to manage and study fatigue in people with MS; however, current measurements often lack content validity. A mismatch between key aspects of fatigue and existing fatigue scales will limit these scales' ability to capture the full scope of MS-related fatigue. We aimed to examine the current evidence on MS-related fatigue to define key aspects of fatigue in the literature and compare them with the scales used to measure MS-related fatigue.

Methods: This integrated rapid review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42024505743) synthesised evidence on MS-related fatigue domains and their representation in validated scales. A systematic search was conducted on January 24, 2024, across three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest with no restriction on publication date. Eligible studies included those reporting on fatigue domains, signs and symptoms in people with MS and those on validated fatigue scales in MS. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Data was synthesised with meta-aggregation of the fatigue domains, signs, and symptoms and mapping them against the items from validated fatigue scales.

Results: We identified 7089 articles and included 85 studies (quantitative: 65; qualitative: 9; mixed methods: 8); 54 investigated fatigue domains, five reported fatigue scale development, and 26 focused on both. The review included 34,984 participants (9814 male; 25,126 female) with a mean age of 47.43 years (range 36-55.4). A total of 791 items related to fatigue domains, signs, symptoms, and experiences were extracted and categorised into three key areas: fatigue triggers, domains, and impacts. We identified eight fatigue triggers (physical, cognitive, psychological, social, medical, lifestyle, temporal, and environmental), five fatigue domains (general, physical, cognitive, psychosocial, and social), and five areas of fatigue impact (global, physical, cognitive, psychological, and social impacts of fatigue). Twenty-nine scales, tests, measures, and indices that measure MS-related fatigue were identified. Nineteen of these were validated by self-reported fatigue scales. The scales fully covered the domains of MS-related fatigue. However, the identified scales did not fully capture medical and lifestyle triggers, as well as psychological and global impacts. Additionally, no single scale fully encompassed all three aspects of fatigue and their corresponding subcategories.

Conclusion: This review demonstrates the importance of integrating the subjective experiences of people with MS into research to ensure that the multidimensional aspects of MS-related fatigue, together with these people's values, needs, and preferences, are captured and used to develop useful, comprehensive, and meaningful tools designed to measure MS-related fatigue. In addition, this clearer discernment of the triggers, domains, and impacts of MS-related fatigue is critical in the clinic and research. Better tools will enable a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms, as well as tracking and managing fatigue.

测量多发性硬化症的疲劳:快速回顾。
背景:正如多发性硬化症患者所描述的那样,疲劳是多发性硬化症(MS)最普遍和最虚弱的症状之一。它具有复杂的发病机制,通常先于MS的临床症状,并可能预示疾病进展。鉴于其普遍性、影响和与疾病病理的复杂联系,准确的测量对于管理和研究多发性硬化症患者的疲劳至关重要;然而,目前的测量往往缺乏内容效度。疲劳的关键方面与现有疲劳量表之间的不匹配将限制这些量表捕捉ms相关疲劳的全部范围的能力。我们旨在研究ms相关疲劳的现有证据,以定义文献中疲劳的关键方面,并将其与用于测量ms相关疲劳的量表进行比较。方法:本综合快速综述(PROSPERO注册号:CRD42024505743)综合了ms相关疲劳域及其在有效量表中的表征的证据。系统检索于2024年1月24日在PubMed、Scopus和ProQuest三个电子数据库中进行,对出版日期没有限制。符合条件的研究包括那些报告多发性硬化症患者疲劳域、体征和症状的研究,以及那些报告多发性硬化症患者有效疲劳量表的研究。使用混合方法评估工具评估纳入研究的质量。通过对疲劳域、体征和症状的元聚合来合成数据,并将它们与来自有效疲劳量表的项目进行映射。结果:我们共纳入7089篇文献和85项研究(定量方法:65篇,定性方法:9篇,混合方法:8篇);54个研究疲劳领域,5个报告疲劳量表的发展,26个关注两者。该综述包括34,984名参与者(9814名男性,25,126名女性),平均年龄为47.43岁(范围36-55.4岁)。与疲劳域、体征、症状和经验相关的总共791个项目被提取出来,并分为三个关键领域:疲劳触发、域和影响。我们确定了八种疲劳触发因素(身体、认知、心理、社会、医疗、生活方式、时间和环境),五个疲劳领域(一般、身体、认知、社会心理和社会),以及五个疲劳影响领域(疲劳的整体、身体、认知、心理和社会影响)。确定了29种测量ms相关疲劳的量表、测试、测量和指数。其中19项是通过自我报告的疲劳量表来验证的。量表完全涵盖了ms相关疲劳的领域。然而,已确定的量表并没有完全捕捉到医疗和生活方式的触发因素,以及心理和全球影响。此外,没有一个单一的量表完全包括疲劳的所有三个方面及其相应的子类别。结论:本综述证明了将多发性硬化症患者的主观体验纳入研究的重要性,以确保多发性硬化症相关疲劳的多维方面,以及这些人的价值观、需求和偏好,被捕获并用于开发有用、全面和有意义的工具来测量多发性硬化症相关疲劳。此外,更清晰地识别ms相关疲劳的诱因、领域和影响在临床和研究中是至关重要的。更好的工具将能够更好地理解潜在的机制,以及跟踪和管理疲劳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信