Review Comparative study for fatigue prevalence in subjects with diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2024 Park et al

Abstract

Fatigue is one of the common symptoms in individuals with diseases or disorders, significantly affecting quality of life (QoL) and the prognosis of diseases. This study aimed to comprehensively compare the features of fatigue across a wide range of diseases. We systematically searched the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 31st, 2021, and conducted a meta-analysis to generate precise estimates. The analyses were stratified by classification of diseases, gender, and severity of fatigue (moderate and severe), and study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS).

In total, 214 articles (233 prevalence data) met our eligibility criteria, covering 102,024 participants (mean 438 ± 1,421) across 88 diseases. Among these, seventy-eight data sets (52,082 participants) and thirty-nine data sets (10,389 participants) reported gender- and severity-related fatigue prevalence. The overall prevalence among subjects with 88 diseases was 49.4% [95% CI 46.9–52.1]. According to the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) classification, the highest prevalence of fatigue (65.9% [95% CI 54.9–79.6]) was observed in patients with mental/behavioral diseases, whereas the lowest prevalence (34.7% [95% CI 24.5–49.2]) was found among those with circulatory system diseases. A slight female dominance (43.5% vs. 49.8%) was observed in the total data, with the most notable female predominance (1.8-fold) seen in patients with low back pain. The top disease groups with a moderate to severe level of fatigue included gastroparesis (92.3%), pulmonary hypertension (90.0%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, 83.2%), and multiple sclerosis (80.0%).

These results are the first to comprehensively show the comparative features of fatigue prevalence among subjects across 88 diseases. Our findings provide valuable reference data for future research on fatigue and for the management of patients with fatigue.

Open access, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-74683-z

 

"The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies reporting lifetime prevalence of fatigue, (2) studies focusing on a specific fatigue subdomain, such as only physical or mental, (3) studies on fatigue induction after specific medical procedures, (4) studies on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) prevalence, (5) studies in patients with cancer, (6) studies with fewer than 30 participants, (7) review articles, (8) duplicate articles, and (9) articles without full texts. All languages were included."

 

If you compare apples with bananas you are likely to find one longer than the other.

 

They excluded ME/CFS in a study of fatigue. I mean we did spend decades trying to get through to them that ME/CFS isn't 'just' fatigue but this is frankly ridiculous.

You can't call them systematic reviews if they're not systematic.

Really, that's evidence-based medicine in a nutshell: incorrect redefine a chronic illness as 'just fatigue', then exclude it from reviews of fatigue because, uh, reasons? Really they just gave no reason. This clown show is such a ridiculous mess. How has this way of doing things become dominant when it's this mediocre?

It's not as if this review is of any use anyway. It does not inform anyone of anything. It's publishing stuff for the goal of having published stuff. Especially knowing how much of the 'fatigue' found in 'mental disorders' is actually fatigue and similar symptoms by causes they can't figure out. Invalid reviews made from invalid analysis from invalid data. EBM!