Sergio López Barbeta , Manuela Carrión Martínez , Alejandro Lendínez Mesa , Alberto Diliz Vieira , Carlos Díaz-Rodríguez
{"title":"Systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome treatment methodology","authors":"Sergio López Barbeta , Manuela Carrión Martínez , Alejandro Lendínez Mesa , Alberto Diliz Vieira , Carlos Díaz-Rodríguez","doi":"10.1016/j.sedeng.2024.100164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div><span>Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a highly prevalent pathology that has not been clearly defined. Currently, there is no universally accepted treatment protocol, and the </span>diagnostic markers<span>, etiology, and specific pathophysiology for developing effective non-pharmacological treatments remain unknown.</span></div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To determine the currently established rehabilitation treatment methodologies for CFS. In addition, to establish an analysis of the efficacy of the treatment plans studied and to determine advances on the etiology of CFS.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review<span> of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published since 2011 was conducted. Studies evaluating non-pharmacological interventions for adult CFS patients were included, differentiating them according to chosen diagnostic criteria and variable measurement. The treatment hypothesis of the selected interventions was also taken into account.</span></div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>17 RCTs were included, 6 of which based their performance protocol on a self-management booklet and 11 of which did so through face-to-face involvement of a therapist and active therapy. The results of these studies were assessed primarily by patient-reported outcomes, and 5 of these studies reported on objective outcome measures.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>There is no significant evidence on the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions in CFS patients. In addition, the lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria makes it difficult to compare studies and to develop a standardised treatment plan. Advances in the aetiology and pathophysiology of CFS point to the need for a broader therapeutic approach.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":101097,"journal":{"name":"Revista Científica de la Sociedad de Enfermería Neurológica (English ed.)","volume":"62 ","pages":"Article 100164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Científica de la Sociedad de Enfermería Neurológica (English ed.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2530299X24000219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a highly prevalent pathology that has not been clearly defined. Currently, there is no universally accepted treatment protocol, and the diagnostic markers, etiology, and specific pathophysiology for developing effective non-pharmacological treatments remain unknown.
Objective
To determine the currently established rehabilitation treatment methodologies for CFS. In addition, to establish an analysis of the efficacy of the treatment plans studied and to determine advances on the etiology of CFS.
Methods
A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published since 2011 was conducted. Studies evaluating non-pharmacological interventions for adult CFS patients were included, differentiating them according to chosen diagnostic criteria and variable measurement. The treatment hypothesis of the selected interventions was also taken into account.
Results
17 RCTs were included, 6 of which based their performance protocol on a self-management booklet and 11 of which did so through face-to-face involvement of a therapist and active therapy. The results of these studies were assessed primarily by patient-reported outcomes, and 5 of these studies reported on objective outcome measures.
Conclusion
There is no significant evidence on the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions in CFS patients. In addition, the lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria makes it difficult to compare studies and to develop a standardised treatment plan. Advances in the aetiology and pathophysiology of CFS point to the need for a broader therapeutic approach.