1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Chronic fatigue syndrome: modern aspects of diagnosis and treatment, 2021, Vorobyeva and Danilov

Discussion in 'ME/CFS research news' started by Andy, May 27, 2021.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Abstract in English

    The article presents a modern ecological approach to the pathogenesis and treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). CFS is views in terms of gene-environment concept. The basic data in patients with CFS, triggers of diseases that implement the mechanisms responsible for the manifestation of symptoms are presented. A systematic approach to the diagnosis and treatment of diseases is given.

    Paywalled article in Russian, https://www.mediasphera.ru/issues/z...i-im-s-s-korsakova/2021/4/1199772982021041113
     
    Hutan, DokaGirl and Peter Trewhitt like this.
  2. Three Chord Monty

    Three Chord Monty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    208
    Hard to be optimistic about something from which there's almost no info from which to draw any conclusions, and I don't think we know a lot about ME in Russia, which suggests the reality for pts is not good.

    But, looking at the references, well, I have seen papers that cite research we would tend to consider scientifically accurate, and useful in providing more contemporary understanding in refuting psych literature, that do so only to criticize (a fairly important review from Germany from a few years ago comes to mind, one of those where they go from 'the recent IOM report finds the main symptom to be post-exertional malaise' to 'the only evidence-based treatments are CBT & GET' in the same paragraph. I only glanced at it briefly, but it seemed like the authors cited more in the way of recent literature than the older CBT/GET stuff. That was there, and who knows what's praised & what's panned, but it seemed like it was outnumbered by papers demonstrating a more contemporary understanding of ME.
     
    cfsandmore, Hutan, alktipping and 4 others like this.

Share This Page