1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 22nd November 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Autonomic Phenotypes in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) are Associated with Illness Severity: A Cluster Analysis, 2020, Zalewski, Morten, Newton et al

Discussion in 'BioMedical ME/CFS Research' started by Andy, Aug 5, 2020.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member (& Outreach when energy allows)

    Messages:
    14,790
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Open access, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/8/2531
     
    spinoza577, John Mac, Barry and 15 others like this.
  2. wigglethemouse

    wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    908
    This is a Fukuda criteria CFS study with no controls that started in 2013.

    The results look confusing to me. Seems like just a random scatter. But then I'm only able to scan papers and not read the detail so hopefully it's me that's at fault. Some interesting ideas on measuring autonomic parameters to try and subgroup..........

    I like to look at scatter plots and data tables. This is table A1. Can anyone explain to me why they didn't throw out so many lines items where the standard deviation is greater that the mean?

    upload_2020-8-5_11-34-51.png
     
    Michelle, Hutan, Ravn and 5 others like this.
  3. Ravn

    Ravn Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,463
    This may account for the fact that nearly 20% did not report PEM. At least this was recorded and it turns out that the non-PEM cases cluster in some of the subgroups. Which could possibly tell us something but what that might be isn't further analysed. Seems like a missed opportunity. I'd like to see more studies looking at Fukuda-with-PEM compared to Fukuda-without-PEM.

    But as for using the CFQ! Admittedly just as one amongst other instruments but still, can we please please please just press delete on that thing!
    Confusing all right. Those tables just make my brain go crosseyed.

    Also confusing, they decided their results suggested the following subgroups (some of which are very small):
    • sympathetic with dysautonomia
    • sympathetic
    • parasympathetic
    • balanced
    The names 'sympathetic' and 'sympathetic with dysautonomia' are confusing. The group called 'sympathetic with dysautonomia' has autonomic symptoms both subjectively and objectively. Whereas the (very small) group called just 'sympathetic' report few autonomic symptoms (subjectively) but they still have lots of objective markers of dysautonomia. So better names would have been 'sympathetic with symptomatic dysautonomia' and 'sympathetic with asymptomatic dysautonomia'.

    Ignoring the problems of validity with the small numbers, this observation that some people experience subjective dysautonomia symptoms and others do not despite both groups having objective markers could maybe fit in with that recent study showing low brain perfusion even in patients not reporting OI?

    polish subgroups graph.JPG
     
    Barry, Michelle, Amw66 and 5 others like this.
  4. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,155
    Grigor, andypants, Amw66 and 3 others like this.

Share This Page