检验医学研究所关于慢性疲劳综合征的建议:临床与研究标准。

Journal of neurology and psychology Pub Date : 2015-01-01 Epub Date: 2015-11-25
Leonard A Jason, Stephanie McManimen, Madison Sunnquist, Abigail Brown, Julia L Newton, Elin Bolle Strand
{"title":"检验医学研究所关于慢性疲劳综合征的建议:临床与研究标准。","authors":"Leonard A Jason,&nbsp;Stephanie McManimen,&nbsp;Madison Sunnquist,&nbsp;Abigail Brown,&nbsp;Julia L Newton,&nbsp;Elin Bolle Strand","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Institute of Medicine (2015) has proposed a new <i>clinical</i> case definition for what had been known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). This new criteria involved the following domains: substantial reduction or impairment in the ability to engage in pre-illness levels of occupational, educational, social, or personal activities; post-exertional malaise; unrefreshing sleep; and at least one of the two following symptoms: cognitive impairment or orthostatic intolerance. In addition, in August of 2015, the CFS Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations to the Secretary of US Department of Health and Human Services, proposed that the Canadian 2003 criteria should serve as the <i>research</i> case for CFS. Up to now, there have not been any published investigations comparing these clinical and research criteria. Using patient samples collected in the United States, Great Britain, and Norway, the current study compared and contrasted patients who met the clinical and research criteria. Overall findings indicated that those meeting the research criteria in comparison to those meeting the clinical criteria were significantly more impaired on a wide variety of symptoms and functional areas. The implications of these findings are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":73861,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurology and psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5008852/pdf/nihms781586.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining the Institute of Medicine's Recommendations Regarding Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Clinical Versus Research Criteria.\",\"authors\":\"Leonard A Jason,&nbsp;Stephanie McManimen,&nbsp;Madison Sunnquist,&nbsp;Abigail Brown,&nbsp;Julia L Newton,&nbsp;Elin Bolle Strand\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Institute of Medicine (2015) has proposed a new <i>clinical</i> case definition for what had been known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). This new criteria involved the following domains: substantial reduction or impairment in the ability to engage in pre-illness levels of occupational, educational, social, or personal activities; post-exertional malaise; unrefreshing sleep; and at least one of the two following symptoms: cognitive impairment or orthostatic intolerance. In addition, in August of 2015, the CFS Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations to the Secretary of US Department of Health and Human Services, proposed that the Canadian 2003 criteria should serve as the <i>research</i> case for CFS. Up to now, there have not been any published investigations comparing these clinical and research criteria. Using patient samples collected in the United States, Great Britain, and Norway, the current study compared and contrasted patients who met the clinical and research criteria. Overall findings indicated that those meeting the research criteria in comparison to those meeting the clinical criteria were significantly more impaired on a wide variety of symptoms and functional areas. The implications of these findings are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of neurology and psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5008852/pdf/nihms781586.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of neurology and psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/11/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurology and psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/11/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医学研究所(2015年)为慢性疲劳综合征(CFS)提出了一个新的临床病例定义。这一新标准涉及以下领域:参与疾病前职业、教育、社会或个人活动的能力显著降低或受损;post-exertional不适;unrefreshing睡眠;并且至少有以下两种症状之一:认知障碍或直立性不耐受。此外,2015年8月,向美国卫生与公众服务部部长提出建议的CFS咨询委员会提议,加拿大2003年的标准应作为CFS的研究案例。到目前为止,还没有发表过比较这些临床和研究标准的调查报告。目前的研究使用在美国、英国和挪威收集的患者样本,对符合临床和研究标准的患者进行了比较和对比。总体结果表明,与符合临床标准的人相比,符合研究标准的人在各种症状和功能领域受到的损害要严重得多。讨论了这些发现的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining the Institute of Medicine's Recommendations Regarding Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Clinical Versus Research Criteria.

The Institute of Medicine (2015) has proposed a new clinical case definition for what had been known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). This new criteria involved the following domains: substantial reduction or impairment in the ability to engage in pre-illness levels of occupational, educational, social, or personal activities; post-exertional malaise; unrefreshing sleep; and at least one of the two following symptoms: cognitive impairment or orthostatic intolerance. In addition, in August of 2015, the CFS Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations to the Secretary of US Department of Health and Human Services, proposed that the Canadian 2003 criteria should serve as the research case for CFS. Up to now, there have not been any published investigations comparing these clinical and research criteria. Using patient samples collected in the United States, Great Britain, and Norway, the current study compared and contrasted patients who met the clinical and research criteria. Overall findings indicated that those meeting the research criteria in comparison to those meeting the clinical criteria were significantly more impaired on a wide variety of symptoms and functional areas. The implications of these findings are discussed.

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