Cost-effectiveness of interventions for medically unexplained symptoms: A systematic review, 2018, Wortman et al

Yes. They worked closely together with the UK group, and helped build the illusion of a foundation under their pet theories, both by creating lots of papers and resource material (the PACE trial uses 3 of the Nijmegen group's papers in referral to criteria used, the therapy delivered and the safety for participants) and by engaging with their work via journals (like Bleijenberg & Knoops PACE trial comment claiming recovery or the 2011 letter claiming recovery from CBT in response to Wessely).

I'm not really up to date with current events (looking mostly at the past, my most recent newspaper article is from 2017), but given Bleijenberg and Knoops attitudes, I am fairly sure that you can replace the past tense for the present: unfortunately I expect them to still encourage patients to no longer see themselves as CFS patients/as ill, given that it's been the core of their treatment for so long.

Yes, the CDC criteria mentioned are indeed the Holmes criteria. I'm not sure if I'd agree with your caveat, because it would lead to an even bigger focus on "fatigue". The illness at Lake Tahoe was suggested to be a "chronic, immunologically mediated inflammatory process of the central nervous system", and that is already not very evident from the CDC definition, that is about describing Chronic Epstein Barr Syndrome without actually implying a causal relation with EBV. Because the Nijmegen group had such trouble dividing what the CDC coined CFS from regular, common occuring fatigue (and depression fatigue?), you'd say that for their research they were extra careful to make sure their patients were selected by fitting under the minor criteria too. That this dropping of all the minor criteria seemingly comes at the time that Bleijenberg enters the scene (see post #19) and the team going into psychosomatic/neurasthenia mode, saying that you'd otherwise "show too many people with chronic fatigue the door" (remember, this is about getting reliable data from research, not treating patients) is very telling IMO.


Another snippet of information regarding Nijmegen group and criteria:

In 1997 in the Dutch Journal of Medicine, Van der Meer, under the header "Do not overestimate additional complaints", talks about a case example "Patient A" (link to original, and translated by google link), who, next to tiredness, had complaints about the musculoskeletal system, concentration problems and sleeping problems.

*apparently attached to a paper of theirs in a 1994 edition of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research. Reference 5.


@dave30th also FYI, plus: if Prins et al 2001 used Oxford criteria then, by the text of those 1991 criteria, there were no number of symptoms needed (just all the vague ones?) and they should have "clearly been stated" which of the two syndromes they were studying.