肌痛性脑脊髓炎的诊断:我们现在在哪里?

Expert opinion on medical diagnostics Pub Date : 2013-05-01 Epub Date: 2013-02-27 DOI:10.1517/17530059.2013.776039
Michael Maes, George Anderson, Gerwyn Morris, Michael Berk
{"title":"肌痛性脑脊髓炎的诊断:我们现在在哪里?","authors":"Michael Maes,&nbsp;George Anderson,&nbsp;Gerwyn Morris,&nbsp;Michael Berk","doi":"10.1517/17530059.2013.776039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The World Health Organization has classified myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) as a neurological disease since 1969 considering chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) as a synonym used interchangeably for ME since 1969. ME and CFS are considered to be neuro-immune disorders, characterized by specific symptom profiles and a neuro-immune pathophysiology. However, there is controversy as to which criteria should be used to classify patients with \"chronic fatigue syndrome.\"</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria consider chronic fatigue (CF) to be distinctive for CFS, whereas the International Consensus Criteria (ICC) stresses the presence of post-exertion malaise (PEM) as the hallmark feature of ME. These case definitions have not been subjected to rigorous external validation methods, for example, pattern recognition analyses, instead being based on clinical insights and consensus.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>Pattern recognition methods showed the existence of three qualitatively different categories: (a) CF, where CF evident, but not satisfying full CDC syndrome criteria. (b) CFS, satisfying CDC criteria but without PEM. (c) ME, where PEM is evident in CFS. Future research on this \"chronic fatigue spectrum\" should, therefore, use the above-mentioned validated categories and novel tailored algorithms to classify patients into ME, CFS, or CF.</p>","PeriodicalId":72996,"journal":{"name":"Expert opinion on medical diagnostics","volume":"7 3","pages":"221-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1517/17530059.2013.776039","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis: where are we now?\",\"authors\":\"Michael Maes,&nbsp;George Anderson,&nbsp;Gerwyn Morris,&nbsp;Michael Berk\",\"doi\":\"10.1517/17530059.2013.776039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The World Health Organization has classified myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) as a neurological disease since 1969 considering chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) as a synonym used interchangeably for ME since 1969. ME and CFS are considered to be neuro-immune disorders, characterized by specific symptom profiles and a neuro-immune pathophysiology. However, there is controversy as to which criteria should be used to classify patients with \\\"chronic fatigue syndrome.\\\"</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria consider chronic fatigue (CF) to be distinctive for CFS, whereas the International Consensus Criteria (ICC) stresses the presence of post-exertion malaise (PEM) as the hallmark feature of ME. These case definitions have not been subjected to rigorous external validation methods, for example, pattern recognition analyses, instead being based on clinical insights and consensus.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>Pattern recognition methods showed the existence of three qualitatively different categories: (a) CF, where CF evident, but not satisfying full CDC syndrome criteria. (b) CFS, satisfying CDC criteria but without PEM. (c) ME, where PEM is evident in CFS. Future research on this \\\"chronic fatigue spectrum\\\" should, therefore, use the above-mentioned validated categories and novel tailored algorithms to classify patients into ME, CFS, or CF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert opinion on medical diagnostics\",\"volume\":\"7 3\",\"pages\":\"221-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1517/17530059.2013.776039\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert opinion on medical diagnostics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1517/17530059.2013.776039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2013/2/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert opinion on medical diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1517/17530059.2013.776039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

简介:自1969年以来,世界卫生组织将肌痛性脑脊髓炎(ME)分类为神经系统疾病,而慢性疲劳综合征(CFS)自1969年以来一直是ME的同义词。ME和CFS被认为是神经免疫疾病,具有特定的症状特征和神经免疫病理生理学。然而,对于使用何种标准对“慢性疲劳综合征”患者进行分类存在争议。涵盖领域:疾病控制和预防中心(CDC)的标准认为慢性疲劳(CF)是CFS的特征,而国际共识标准(ICC)强调运动后不适(PEM)是ME的标志特征。这些病例定义没有经过严格的外部验证方法,例如模式识别分析,而是基于临床见解和共识。专家意见:模式识别方法显示存在三种定性不同的类别:(a) CF,其中CF明显,但不满足完全的CDC综合征标准。(b) CFS,符合CDC标准,但没有PEM。(c) ME,其中PEM在CFS中很明显。因此,未来对这种“慢性疲劳谱”的研究应该使用上述经过验证的分类和新颖的定制算法,将患者分为ME、CFS或CF。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis: where are we now?

Introduction: The World Health Organization has classified myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) as a neurological disease since 1969 considering chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) as a synonym used interchangeably for ME since 1969. ME and CFS are considered to be neuro-immune disorders, characterized by specific symptom profiles and a neuro-immune pathophysiology. However, there is controversy as to which criteria should be used to classify patients with "chronic fatigue syndrome."

Areas covered: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria consider chronic fatigue (CF) to be distinctive for CFS, whereas the International Consensus Criteria (ICC) stresses the presence of post-exertion malaise (PEM) as the hallmark feature of ME. These case definitions have not been subjected to rigorous external validation methods, for example, pattern recognition analyses, instead being based on clinical insights and consensus.

Expert opinion: Pattern recognition methods showed the existence of three qualitatively different categories: (a) CF, where CF evident, but not satisfying full CDC syndrome criteria. (b) CFS, satisfying CDC criteria but without PEM. (c) ME, where PEM is evident in CFS. Future research on this "chronic fatigue spectrum" should, therefore, use the above-mentioned validated categories and novel tailored algorithms to classify patients into ME, CFS, or CF.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信