Mistaken conclusions about systemic exertion intolerance disease being comparable to research case definitions of CFS: A rebuttal to Chu et al

Authors

Leonard A. Jason, DePaul University
Madison Sunnquist, DePaul University
Kristen D. Gleason PhD, University of Southern MaineFollow
Pamela A. Fox, DePaul University

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

8-7-2017

Publication Title

Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior

Abstract

The recent article by Chu et al. contrasted different case definitions that have been used to describe chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). In particular, their study compared the new Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria for systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID) with three other ME and CFS case definitions. We appreciate these investigators attempting to use and operationalize the new IOM criteria; however, we disagree with their main conclusion that the percentage of patients selected by the IOM criteria is comparable to the percentage selected by other research case definitions. This conclusion could potentially encourage investigators to use the IOM criteria for research purposes. In this commentary, we discuss our observations of the Chu et al. article with respect to their methodology, illustrating how the conclusions of an investigation can be influenced by the manner in which case definitions are operationalized.

Comments

© 2017 IACFS/ME

This article refers to:

Differences of opinion on systemic exercise intolerance disease are not ‘mistakes’: a rejoinder to Jason Sunnquist, Gleason and Fox

Recommended Citation

Jason, L.A., Sunnquist, M., Gleason, K., & Fox, P. Mistaken conclusions about systemic exertion intolerance disease being comparable to research case definitions of CFS: A rebuttal to Chu et al. Biomedicine, Health & Behavior, 1-9.