BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the CFS case definition [1], there have been a number of other criteria proposed including the Canadian Consensus Criteria [2] and the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. [3]. PURPOSE: The current study compared these domains that were developed through consensus methods to one obtained through more empirical approaches using factor analysis. METHODS: Using data mining, we compared and contrasted fundamental features of consensus-based criteria versus empirical latent factors. In general, these approaches found the domain of Fatigue/Post-exertional malaise as best differentiating patients from controls. RESULTS: Findings indicated that the Fukuda et al. criteria had the worst sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSIONS: These outcomes might help both theorists and researchers better determine which fundamental domains to be used for the case definition.
BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the CFS case definition [1], there have been a number of other criteria proposed including the Canadian Consensus Criteria [2] and the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. [3]. PURPOSE: The current study compared these domains that were developed through consensus methods to one obtained through more empirical approaches using factor analysis. METHODS: Using data mining, we compared and contrasted fundamental features of consensus-based criteria versus empirical latent factors. In general, these approaches found the domain of Fatigue/Post-exertional malaise as best differentiating patients from controls. RESULTS: Findings indicated that the Fukuda et al. criteria had the worst sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSIONS: These outcomes might help both theorists and researchers better determine which fundamental domains to be used for the case definition.
Entities:
Keywords:
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis; biomarkers; case definitions; chronic fatigue syndrome
Authors: G P Holmes; J E Kaplan; N M Gantz; A L Komaroff; L B Schonberger; S E Straus; J F Jones; R E Dubois; C Cunningham-Rundles; S Pahwa Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1988-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ian Hickie; Tracey Davenport; Suzanne D Vernon; Rosane Nisenbaum; William C Reeves; Dusan Hadzi-Pavlovic; Andrew Lloyd Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: B M Carruthers; M I van de Sande; K L De Meirleir; N G Klimas; G Broderick; T Mitchell; D Staines; A C P Powles; N Speight; R Vallings; L Bateman; B Baumgarten-Austrheim; D S Bell; N Carlo-Stella; J Chia; A Darragh; D Jo; D Lewis; A R Light; S Marshall-Gradisnik; I Mena; J A Mikovits; K Miwa; M Murovska; M L Pall; S Stevens Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2011-08-22 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Luis C Nacul; Eliana M Lacerda; Derek Pheby; Peter Campion; Mariam Molokhia; Shagufta Fayyaz; Jose C D C Leite; Fiona Poland; Amanda Howe; Maria L Drachler Journal: BMC Med Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Leonard A Jason; Stephanie McManimen; Madison Sunnquist; Abigail Brown; Jacob Furst; Julia L Newton; Elin Bolle Strand Journal: Fatigue Date: 2016-01-19