Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and Fibromyalgia (FM): the foundation of a relationship, Mckay et al, 2021

[Andy]

Introduction:
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and fibromyalgia (FM) are both debilitating syndromes with complex polysymptomatology. Early research infers that a relationship may exist even though the diagnosis provided may influence the management trajectory. In the absence of a diagnostic test and treatment, this study aims to confirm the symptoms and their severity, which may infer a relationship and influence future research.

Method:
A quasi-experimental design was utilised, using Internet-based self-assessment questionnaires focusing on nine symptom areas: criteria, pain, sleep, fatigue, anxiety and depression, health-related quality of life, self-esteem and locus of control. The questionnaires used for data collection are as follows: the American Centre for Disease Control and Prevention Symptom Inventory for CFS/ME (American CDC Symptom Inventory); the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Criteria for FM; Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ); McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ); Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI); Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI); Health-Related Quality of Life SF-36 V2 (HRQoL SF-36 V2); Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS); Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLOC) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES).

Setting and participants:
Participants were recruited from two distinct community groups, namely CFS/ME (n = 101) and FM (n = 107). Participants were male and female aged 17 (CFS/ME mean age 45.5 years; FM mean age 47.2 years).

Results:
All participants in the CFS/ME and FM groups satisfied the requirements of their individual criteria. Results confirmed that both groups experienced the debilitating symptoms measured, with the exception of anxiety and depression, impacting on their quality of life. Results suggest a relationship between CFS/ME and FM, indicating the requirement for future research.

Paywall, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2049463719875164

 

[Trish]

I thought this research looked familiar.

Same author, same idea, same data set:
Exploratory study into the relationship between the symptoms of CFS/ME and fibromyalgia using a quasiexperimental design, 2021, McKay et al
Published in BMJ Open: Neurology

 

[alktipping]

? why use the terminology quasi experimental design it is either experimental or it isn't . and if anyone has to create a novel design for an experiment it should be explained in full to the minutest detail plus the reasoning for design changes . my sceptical self believes a lot of so called studies are planned to get an all ready determined outcome by changing their design .

 

[Milo]

? why use the terminology quasi experimental design it is either experimental or it isn't . and if anyone has to create a novel design for an experiment it should be explained in full to the minutest detail plus the reasoning for design changes . my sceptical self believes a lot of so called studies are planned to get an all ready determined outcome by changing their design .

Quasi-experimental study is a research methodology terminology

Here is what wiki says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-experiment

A quasi-experiment is an empirical interventional study used to estimate the causalimpact of an intervention on target population without random assignment. Quasi-experimental research shares similarities with the traditional experimental design or randomized controlled trial, but it specifically lacks the element of random assignment to treatment or control. Instead, quasi-experimental designs typically allow the researcher to control the assignment to the treatment condition, but using some criterion other than random assignment (e.g., an eligibility cutoff mark).[1]

Quasi-experiments are subject to concerns regarding internal validity, because the treatment and control groups may not be comparable at baseline. In other words, it may not be possible to convincingly demonstrate a causal link between the treatment condition and observed outcomes. This is particularly true if there are confounding variables that cannot be controlled or accounted for.[2]

With random assignment, study participants have the same chance of being assigned to the intervention group or the comparison group. As a result, differences between groups on both observed and unobserved characteristics would be due to chance, rather than to a systematic factor related to treatment (e.g., illness severity). Randomization itself does not guarantee that groups will be equivalent at baseline. Any change in characteristics post-intervention is likely attributable to the intervention.

 

[Trish]

Under that description, quasi experimental makes no sense in this case because it's not a treatment trial. Perhaps they are referring to the participants being self selected from online recruitment, which might lead to biases in who is interested in participating.

 

[dave30th]

Under that description, quasi experimental makes no sense in this case because it's not a treatment trial. Perhaps they are referring to the participants being self selected from online recruitment, which might lead to biases in who is interested in participating.

This is a cross-sectional study design--batches of questionnaires given to two different groups at a single point in time. Then they compared the groups. I don't get how it is experimental in any way, quasi or non-quasi.

 

[Snow Leopard]

All this illustrates is the lack of specificity of either the criteria or the questionnaires. Only with understanding of the underlying pathology can they be truly linked.