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, Stephanie McManimen, Madison Sunnquist, Abigail Brown, Julia L Newton, 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, Stephanie McManimen, Madison Sunnquist, Abigail Brown, Julia L Newton, 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}
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.