Potential causal factors of CFS/ME: a concise and systematic scoping review of factors researched, Larun et al, 2020

John Mac

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Not sure which forum to post this in given Lillebeth Larun is involved.

Abstract
Background
Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is understood as a complex condition, likely triggered and sustained by an interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors.
Little oversight exists of the field of causal research.
This systematic scoping review explores potential causal factors of CFS/ME as researched by primary studies.

Methods
We searched eight databases for primary studies that examined potential causal factors of CFS/ME. Based on title/abstract review, two researchers independently sorted each study’s factors into nine main categories and 71 subordinate categories, using a system developed with input given during a 2018 ME conference, specialists and representatives from a ME patient advocacy group, and using BMJ Best Practice’s description of CFS/ME etiology.
We also extracted data related to study design, size, diagnostic criteria and comparison groups.

Results
We included 1161 primary studies published between January 1979 and June 2019.
Based on title/abstract analysis, no single causal factor dominated in these studies, and studies reported a mean of 2.73 factors.
The four most common factors were:
immunological (297 studies),
psychological (243),
infections (198),
and neuroendocrinal (198).
The most frequent study designs were case–control studies (894 studies) comparing CFS/ME patients with healthy participants.
More than half of the studies (that reported study size in the title/abstract) included 100 or fewer participants.

Conclusion
The field of causal hypotheses of CFS/ME is diverse, and we found that the studies examined all the main categories of possible factors that we had defined a priori.
Most studies were not designed to adequately explore causality, rather to establish hypotheses. We need larger studies with stronger study designs to gain better knowledge of causal factors of CFS/ME.

https://translational-medicine.biom...5-6#:~:text=CFS/ME is a condition,13, 24, 28].
 
I can't see the point of publishing this.

This is just churn, publishing something simply to have their names on publications.
We need larger studies with stronger study designs to gain better knowledge of causal factors of CFS/ME.
Well, then, go away. We've been asking and lobbying, even raising most of the funds, for this for decades and this was systematically denied because of quacks like Larun. Go away. Shoo, shoo.
We hope to see more well-designed prospective cohort studies in the future, particularly as post-covid-19 fatigue—and the potential risk for developing CFS/ME after infection with Sars-CoV-2—is explored.
Yes, we need real science. And, no, not for "fatigue". Go. Away.
 
In our sample based on titles/abstracts, only 18% of studies reported which diagnostic criteria had been used.

Does this mean that they actually don't read beyond the title and abstract?

ETA:Yes, it does.. :(


A clear limitation of this review is that we extracted data from titles/abstracts only, and not from full-texts. While this was a pragmatic decision based on resources available, reading full texts would likely have provided us more information about study size, region, and comparison groups. It is important for readers to note that much of the data we report as “missing” from the title/abstract level may have been reported in full text. As we did not aim to synthesize the results of the studies, we think that the data extracted from the titles/abstracts provides the intended descriptive overview of the categories of causal factors that have been studied, and the study designs that have been used.
 
For this sentence under "Background" they use CDC's Etiology and Pathophysiology. ME/CFS 2018 as source. I'd say that's a stretch and an interpretation.

Rather than a single cause, it is likely that multiple biological, psychological and/or social factors may predispose, trigger, and maintain this condition

It's a lie. They are taking the BPS formulation of the three Ps (predisposing, precipitating and perpetuating, which they have renamed a bit) and attributing it to the CDC. It's blatantly dishonest.
 
Back
Top Bottom