1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for 'CFS'.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 4th November 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! Read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum.
    Dismiss Notice

Prevalence and characteristics of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) in Poland: a cross-sectional study, 2019, Slomko et al

Discussion in 'ME/CFS research' started by Andy, Mar 8, 2019.

Tags:
Page 1 of 2
  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    23,034
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Open access at https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/3/e023955
     
    Andy, Mar 8, 2019
    #1
    Inara, andypants, Amw66 and 3 others like this.
  2. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    23,034
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Only 89% of those identified in this study as having "CFS/ME" had PEM. By my calculations then only 61.41 (?!) people had ME.
     
    Andy, Mar 8, 2019
    #2
    Inara, andypants, Amw66 and 5 others like this.
  3. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    55,414
    Location:
    UK
    I think this is interesting:
    when combined with this:
    So that seems to be saying that of the 1400 who self identified with fatigue sufficiently to have joined an ME/CFS support network, only 69 actually had ME as defined by the Fukuda criteria (and not all of those had PEM) and the rest had other identifiable disorders.

    This suggests a major crisis of misdiagnosis - in either direction. Who knows whether this study is actually any better at diagnosing than their self diagnosis.

    Edit: I should have read the full paper first. It says it was also widely advertised in the media. The 1400 were directed to a website to find out more, including what the Fukuda criteria are, and were cut down at this stage to 90.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2019
    Trish, Mar 8, 2019
    #3
    andypants, Mithriel, Snow Leopard and 8 others like this.
  4. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    55,414
    Location:
    UK
    I see Julia Newton is involved. I do wish she would stop using Fukuda criteria, especially for her biomedical studies.
     
    Trish, Mar 8, 2019
    #4
    Inara, andypants, Mithriel and 9 others like this.
  5. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,924
    Location:
    UK
    Sly Saint, Mar 8, 2019
    #5
    andypants, Barry, Amw66 and 4 others like this.
  6. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,426
    My guess is that the HADS scale was inappropriately used, resulting in a large portion of patients being diagnosed with depression. Fukuda excludes psychiatric disorders. Therefore most of the 654 patients diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder could have something like POTS or CFS instead.

    That was my my first thought upon reading the abstract, because something doesn't seem right here. Misdiagnosis is a problem but 93% is far higher than what others have found. Now a look at the study.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2019
    Hoopoe, Mar 8, 2019
    #6
    Inara, andypants, pteropus and 5 others like this.
  7. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,426
    It sounds like the step were 93% of participants were considered to not have ME/CFS was this one.

    That could indicate a problem with the exclusion criteria in Fukuda, or some hidden problem with the procedure. According to the paper, the patients excluded at this step had neurological (n=280, 21.5%), neurodegenerative (n=200, 15%), psychiatric (n=654, 50%) and immunologic (n=174, 13.5%) disorders.

    What may have happened is that they asked about any other diagnosis that patients had, and excluded everyone with some other diagnosis. This is what should be done according to the Fukuda criteria, as they were created for research.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2019
    Hoopoe, Mar 8, 2019
    #7
    andypants, Lisa108, pteropus and 3 others like this.
  8. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    23,034
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    In of itself, I'll need to be convinced that there is much value to this paper.

    Can anybody spot anywhere in the paper where they justify these statements?
     
    Andy, Mar 8, 2019
    #8
    andypants, pteropus, Chezboo and 1 other person like this.
  9. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    55,414
    Location:
    UK
    Has anyone here experienced this 'high tech device'?

    Edit:

     
    Trish, Mar 8, 2019
    #9
    andypants, Andy and Hutan like this.
  10. roller*

    roller* Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    249
    out of 1400 ppl feeling chronic fatigued only 69 met fukuda criteria.

    some of the symptoms reported by these 69 polish mecfs were:

    91.3% short-term memory and concentration
    89% postexertional malaise
    72.5% multi-joint pain without swelling or redness
    66.7% muscle pain
    65.2% Dryness eyes mouth (45/69)
    62.3% headaches
    62% epworth daytime sleepiness scores (43/69)
    59.4% Dizziness/headaches (41/69)
    50% orthostatic intolerance
    42.0% Arrhythmia (29/69)
    39.1% sore throat
    38% significant anxiety HADS A & D (26/69)
    36.2% Sudden paleness (25/69)
    32% depression HADS A & D (22/69)
    30.4% tender cervical or axillary lymph nodes
     
    roller*, Mar 8, 2019
    #10
    andypants and pteropus like this.
  11. Peter

    Peter Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    239

    I never really understand how one can use Fukuda when PEM, being a hallmark and cardinal symptom. But out of the 1400 participants, 69 Fukuda, and then again 61,5 Canada if 89% of the 69 experienced PEM.
     
    Peter, Mar 8, 2019
    #11
    andypants likes this.
  12. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,420
    [my bold]

    Not encouraging.
     
    Barry, Mar 8, 2019
    #12
    rvallee and Andy like this.
  13. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    15,175
    Location:
    London, UK
    I have not read the paper beyond the abstract but is there any sign of a denominator here? What was the size of population from which this group of 69 people were drawn? Unless we know that I cannot see how anything can be said about prevalence. I also think that self-reporting in response to adverts distributed through healthcare webpages makes interpretation pretty impossible. I imagine that a very high proportion of people with ME do not look at such websites and that quite a lot of people without ME do.
     
    Jonathan Edwards, Mar 8, 2019
    #13
    andypants, Barry, Trish and 2 others like this.
  14. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    23,034
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    1400 people who declared themselves chronically fatigued.
    I'm going to point this out as well.
    JS is Joanna Slomko, and PZ is Pawel Zalewski - I know nothing of their previous output, if any. DS is Don Staines and SM-G is Sonya Marshall-Gradisnik who, in my opinion, hype any result they get and it appears they have done the same with this paper, in my opinion.
     
    Andy, Mar 8, 2019
    #14
    inox, andypants, Barry and 1 other person like this.
  15. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    15,175
    Location:
    London, UK
    Yes, but out of how many people who received the advert?
    Presumably people with other conditions are more likely to look at health sites so the proportion of 69/1400 probably means nothing at all.

    We have no idea whether this is 69 PWME in 15,000 or 15,000,000 do we?
     
    Jonathan Edwards, Mar 8, 2019
    #15
    inox, andypants, Barry and 3 others like this.
  16. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    23,034
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Nope, exactly, which is why it frustrates me that they are making claims about prevalence.
     
    Andy, Mar 8, 2019
    #16
    inox, andypants, Lisa108 and 3 others like this.
  17. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,377
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Yes, it's such a basic error and a fundamental one in a paper with 'prevalence' in the title.

    It, and the other errors such as using HADS results to eliminate people supposedly with depression, reflect poorly on all of the authors and others involved.

    There's an impact on the people who participated in the study to think about too. I imagine a lot of the people will be struggling to be believed and have little support. And this study comes along and says, of 1400 people who think they have ME/CFS, actually 654 of you have a psychiatric condition. I'm not sure how you identify a neurological or neurodegenerative condition with the tests used either.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2019
    Hutan, Mar 8, 2019
    #17
    Inara, andypants, Snowdrop and 2 others like this.
  18. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,426
    Exclusive diagnostic criteria cannot be used to establish the prevalence anyway. They will only give a minimum prevalence because in the real world people tend to have more than one health issue.

    Neither can inclusive diagnostic criteria that are not tied to some reliable sign of the illness.
     
    Hoopoe, Mar 8, 2019
    #18
    andypants, Snow Leopard, Andy and 1 other person like this.
  19. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,420
    Or even how many did not receive the advert?
     
    Barry, Mar 8, 2019
    #19
    andypants likes this.
  20. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    15,175
    Location:
    London, UK
    I think we know that - about 7 billion! (Not counting vulcans and clingons)
     
    Jonathan Edwards, Mar 8, 2019
    #20
    andypants, Graham, NelliePledge and 3 others like this.
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page