Internet-Based CBT for CFS Integrated in Routine Clinical Care: Implementation Study (2019) Knoop, Worm-Smeitink, et al

This is in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

"All adult patients referred for the treatment of CFS could participate if the following criteria were met: (1) a physician had concluded that the patient suffered from severe and disabling fatigue not explained by a known somatic or psychiatric condition; (2) the 2003 CDC consensus criteria for CFS were met (ie, severe, disabling fatigue was present, lasting for at least 6 months, accompanied by at least 4 out of 8 additional symptoms) or patients met criteria for idiopathic chronic fatigue (ICF) syndrome (ie, reported severe and persistent fatigue but did not meet all CDC criteria, <4 additional symptoms, or less impact on daily functioning."

Also "no specific exclusions." So, the precursor to the Reeves Criteria...or NO criteria. And why would peer reviewers care, anyway. It's just CFS. As for "Idiopathic Chronic Fatigue Syndrome," that's a new one on me. I did do a quick search & apparently it's a term that has been used before, not that it means anything. I have a feeling it's fairly exclusive to psychs/BPS, and ME denialists.

What I find particularly sad about this, is that actual, bona fide CBT for those who would benefit from it (not too many ME patients, I daresay) could be a good thing over the internet. But we're not going to find out much from these clowns. Given the presence of Knoop & the mockery of case definitions, it would seem there's absolutely nothing here that's going to do anybody any good, except for those who are hoping to integrate this sort of thing into clinical care/looking to score as many grants for further research as they can.

www.jmir.org/2019/10/e14037

 

as far as I am aware it should be Idiopathic Chronic Fatigue (without the syndrome on the end)
https://me-pedia.org/wiki/Idiopathic_chronic_fatigue
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10721210

although ICF does not have a WHO classification

 

The full term seems like a misnomer but it does pop up here and there.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12671155

"...QFS patients were found to have similar patterns of gene expression to patients with idiopathic chronic fatigue syndrome."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20802011

https://www.em-consulte.com/en/article/159622

https://books.google.com/books?id=_s65U1n9Lf8C&pg=PA861&lpg=PA861&dq="idiopathic+chronic+fatigue+syndrome"&source=bl&ots=xjblXKKKgy&sig=ACfU3U1oAe309Cp_5OSNAwaJWLzDWS2xWg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyvZ-HkpLlAhUDVt8KHdKtDcwQ6AEwDnoECBMQAg#v=onepage&q="idiopathic chronic fatigue syndrome"&f=false

 

Wow. That is a complete mess, i.e. the usual. Who the hell approves this nonsense in the first place? It's almost impossible to select things that are wrong with it because it's basically most of it. It "compares" online CBT-GET by doing it online first, then face-to-face. No objective outcomes. Concludes they are equal. Equally useless, but obviously they reach the opposite.

The stepped thing is basically CBT then GET:

I have no idea how anyone thinks this is serious:

Measures:

Absolute minimal subjective definition of improvement:

Results:

Bah. Honestly no point going any further. This is yet another nearly identical trial trying to influence responses on a questionnaire. Complete waste of everything.