Should we initiate development of a new, short questionnaire to identify PEM (to aid diagnosis)?

I think it's necessary because relying on patients' impressions and clinicians' impressions is not enough

How else do we do it, though? People's impressions are all we have to go on. They may be describing their own experience, or an amended version of it that they think aligns better with descriptions they've read, or trying to lead the diagnostician to a particular conclusion. We don't know, and it's hard to see how better questionnaires would get around it.

We need a broader picture of ME/CFS for diagnosis, not least because PEM's now a dozen different things. The term's probably reaching the end of its useful life, if it isn't there already.

So if we can get data that tell us what the-particular-pathological-response-to-exertion-in-ME/CFS is

I agree that would be great, but we won't get it from a diagnostic questionnaire.

It's more likely to become apparent through understanding the whole picture in ME/CFS. If a theoretical model is created that explains the PEM phenomenon, which is then backed up by a successful trial of a disease modifying drug, we're pretty much there. More trials might be needed to find better drugs, but we probably don't need to consider PEM separately any more or even try to work out exactly what's going on.
 
We don't know, and it's hard to see how better questionnaires would get around it.

I agree that would be great, but we won't get it from a diagnostic questionnaire.
I've argued against a diagnostic questionnaire throughout the thread. So we agree, none of this would arise from a questionnaire that tries to aid diagnosis.


How else do we do it, though?
You do studies like Moore et al. (linked above), or Jones et al. 2011 (linked further above) where you actually expose people to triggers and then document what happens, and how it differs in ME/CFS from other diseases.

You do studies that are questionnaire-based, but don't assume the conclusion, so you don't define PEM first and then ask your questions. You ask questions about post-exertional phenomena in different severities of ME/CFS and different fatiguing illnesses, and then you decide what this means about how we should define PEM.

For example, rather than deciding "PEM only refers to an increase in symptoms that starts at least 8 hours after exertion" and asking
"If you do more exercise than usual and feel worse afterwards, do you feel worse straight away or does it take more than X hours for symptoms to start?"

Instead, you ask something like

If you do more exercise than usual and feel worse afterwards, do you start to feel worse
  • straight away
  • an hour later
  • 2 -7 hours later
  • 8-11 hours later
  • 12-23 hours later
  • 1-2 days later
  • 3-6 days later
  • a week or more later
And you allow people to tick all that apply.

If you do more exercise than usual and feel worse afterwards, are your symptoms worst
  • straight away
  • an hour later
  • 2 -7 hours later
  • 8-11 hours later
  • 12-23 hours later
  • 1-2 days later
  • 3-6 days later
  • a week or more later

You do that for every other variable you can think of - triggers, duration, previous week's activity level, always eventually recovered etc - and then after that, you describe what you found.

You might, at that point, be able to come up with a questionnaire that you can test to see if it predicts who will show abnormality Y on a test e.g. inability to increase proton flux after a plantar flexion challenge as in Jones 2011 or whatever ends up being real and reproducible. Maybe only certain questions or one question predicts it.

We won't learn much by just coming up with a narrow definition that we think might pick us out and not others and then seeing if we're right. Because we could be totally wrong about how this actually looks across a large enough sample of pwME, and we could be totally wrong about how people with other fatiguing illnesses respond to exertion.
 
Late to the party as usual. To me, the defining characteristic of PEM is the abruptness. You do just a little more than you should, and the bottom suddenly falls out. That's in contrast to fatiguability or exercise intolerance which maintains the linear relationship to the exertion, more or less. Those terms really refer to being unable to handle exercise like healthy people, rather than being set on fire when you cross your limit.

Figuring out how to measure the exertion and fatigue would be the key to detecting and differentiating PEM, I think. If you can measure them and show the abruptness of PEM, then you wouldn't need a questionnaire.
 
How else do we do it, though? People's impressions are all we have to go on. They may be describing their own experience, or an amended version of it that they think aligns better with descriptions they've read, or trying to lead the diagnostician to a particular conclusion. We don't know, and it's hard to see how better questionnaires would get around it.

We need a broader picture of ME/CFS for diagnosis, not least because PEM's now a dozen different things. The term's probably reaching the end of its useful life, if it isn't there already.



I agree that would be great, but we won't get it from a diagnostic questionnaire.

It's more likely to become apparent through understanding the whole picture in ME/CFS. If a theoretical model is created that explains the PEM phenomenon, which is then backed up by a successful trial of a disease modifying drug, we're pretty much there. More trials might be needed to find better drugs, but we probably don't need to consider PEM separately any more or even try to work out exactly what's going on.
I think we need to add in regarding long covid one really key extra difference: even those who had it the longest have only had 5yrs

And whilst we can talk about the need to warn people how important not pushing in the early stages of either is

It is a completely different knowledge base and level of experience/experiment if you had 20yrs during which there might have been a year in school pushing thru, a year in uni where you could sack off things but found you had no control of being able to even turn it on when you’d Hope , years in different jobs with different adjustments hours exertions vs different levels of illness. And during all of it was open minded until the consequences hit a year in.

And perhaps during it thought it must be ‘something else’ for a lot of it.

Vs those who had covid during this timeframe and when they couldn’t get it together in the slow return to work they assumed would just work out in the end had all of these materials out there.

It makes for an issue regarding our voice and the insight into ‘where we are coming from’ getting again replaced , this time just as the new guideline finally came out, with hcp rewriting a narrative assuming those of us who actually never had a chance to try the rest of convalescence and are now broken having a fake history stuck on us again because they want to assume we had the same ‘path to where we are now’ that those who had Covid are assumed to have.

For a start many of us never had our initial infections and overwork through them ever properly acknowledged. And we got gaslighted. If you have a Covid test that’s different for your own sanity to know there’s a chance of x,y,z.

It’s also complicated that like when the ‘post viral syndrome might be different to me/cfs’ idea is posed ‘but the issue is that you only know which you had in retrospect’ most of us are talking about these things and giving insight from the benefits of that retrospect but there are other loud voices ‘in it at the moment’ ie the stages where it still could go either way, even if they have me/cfs but got the rest in the early years.

It feels like another excuse to dismiss our knowledge under bundling us in

And it’s not good for long COVID either because whilst those til this point might have had an unusual scenario for these years vs most with me/cfs (who didn’t believe the diagnosis itself partly because the guideline was describing it as hypochondria etc) I can see things are now changing for that.

I imagine there won’t be the covid tests used on the same scale in a few years time so those getting it won’t be able to ‘prove they had the infection’ because why would they have the test ‘in case they need it if they are an unlucky one this time’.

And whilst covid clinics have been a mixed bag up til now I can see them becoming the worst of that bag and combining them just being used as an excuse to cherry pick the excuse of ‘we haven’t destroyed those who got it from long covid yet to prove it doesn’t work’ to offer what they know harms me/cfs as the only thing in a combined clinic.

In my generation of me/cfs (based on dates ill) we on the whole got abused and no respite so the dread of them yet again finding another way to claim our history is ‘sitting around too much’ when they caused it by ‘not letting us sleep or rest’ is indescribable.

I can’t speak for what some with long covid had as a situation. I imagine that varies more partly only because of what’s happened in recent years re home working if you were in certain sectors. I dreamed of and then hard to work twice the output to keep the odd day at home only after years of jobs that were wholly inappropriate in many ways. But all I ‘deserved’ given the scars the hostile environment left on my Cv and reputation by their bigotry and lack of adjustments reducing options I should have had if I weren’t an ill person and having less choice for jobs than non disabled.

Yet a kid in school has perhaps had a nightmare.

How the really defining issue which is indeed PEM but more specifically that keeping pushing that threshold leads to deterioration and in the interim either horrific rolling PEM you only notice as that due to the odd fortnight off or day of exercise or night out breaking the washing machine effect if you don’t have ‘easy days’ in a week shows itself is over bigger stretches of time in unsustainable situations (that are only confirmed as such by that after the fact deterioration that no one believes or takes responsibility for if they have bad advice).

But in retrospect to us PEM is obvious because we’ve that tinsilitis we had every time we had a night out or camping trip or long walk that eventually can’t be put down to an unlucky year . That it was every holiday not just one where we managed the travel on the day (where everyone misunderstanding the illness assumes they will see us ‘struggling’) then were a pain the the neck from day 2-6 ‘can’t even sort out their sleep to join us for lunch’

That’s very much not the same as the fatigue ability type descriptions some have of an hour of tiredness just after. Which I probably did get but just had to deal with anyway but knew by then the real butt-kicker would come the day after arrival. And that I foxed people that many nights if I hadn’t had to turn up but only did after I’d napped and was feeling ok that week (ie not a show myself at 6pm for someone’s birthday) didn’t seem at the time ‘less’ on that night that most others (if it was a drag myself out though I might collapse or have to go home early) ‘so I can’t be that ill’.

And that’s the reason why PEM is so important to get right because those of us who have ‘that type’ have been very done over for it not being all the time ‘can’t’ (until slowly our function deteriorates to ‘good days’ being appalling disability level but they are still vastly different to ‘PEM days’) and the ‘through the wall’ at the time being different to ‘seemingly a bit tired’ . And because after decades of at best insinuations we ‘mismanage ourselves’ whether it’s our energy ‘not being paced’ or all the tropey assumptions to do with fatigue nonsense

It has been like living my life not just ‘waiting’ as one of @Kitty descriptions put it a year or so back but like holding on through all this horrific onslaught where saying stop would just result in more abuse or trouble than finding a way to soldier on (behavioural psychology with punishment and reward we’ve been coerced under) holding on by the fingernails like having the most extreme thirst any human could imagine but instead for what can only ever really be your own bed (because by then your body is in such pain anywhere else is like lying on nails and exertion) to just start the process of resting the body so after a few days it will have reduced the pain and exhaustion enough to allow sleep.
 
Last edited:
I’m afraid I do get worried and have to ask the question about those who don’t get this on cumulation. But just talk of PEM as minutes straight after and fatigue. And never had a stage of not being able to wake brain or body the next day. Or whose sleep doesn’t get knocked and training it back just makes it worse.

Because at some point all humans who aren’t so ill that it would be nonsense to even impose /ask of them/can’t try will have been obliged to go to a wedding or a hospital emergency or a long 3 days at work with travel and a crap hotel room and definitely any holiday abroad or significant travel cannot be paced round - and we don’t get confirmed from all those talking about the former what happens and if they get PEM as we describe when they are stuck doing those.

Nearly ALL will have this type of story. Unless their history is of their initial infection led to straight to severe or worse. I don’t know if this has changed with those who had better advice of recent times but nearly everyone ends up ‘pushing it’ for something and ‘gets schooled by the PEM’

So if we are talking diagnostics either people have examples of that or they don’t. If they never have then is it a different thing rather than assuming it’s just a different type of pen that ‘looks like’ fatiguability.

For most who might also get pem like other pem it’s no issue at all for this circumstance - we are just asking IF they get pem and the fact they’ve had barn door type makes that sure.

The concern is for the illest where my question is whether anyone has said (rather than Chinese whispers) that they are more severe and get shorter and/or more immediate pem now, even though they used to get more classic patterns perhaps?

- to make sure no one who is that ill is excluded simply if it does ‘shift’ in some way when it gets much more severe?

If we were doing some deep dive into how pem might look in the few who can pace perfectly and have some type that always behaves then that’s a totally different thing but this isn’t . And I really don’t think plotting it out in the same measures as if it was the same patterns and symptoms as barn door pem in questionnaires that claim to ‘measure’ people’s me/cfs like the proms should be mixing them up either.

And I have ask the question are we including those who’ve only ever had short fatiguability like PEM and aren’t severely ill and never had cumulation to have a crash type out of idea of ‘being inclusive’ because the risk is the same ones who have the most ‘classic’ type end up with genericised descriptions and stats that exclude and harm them if that’s different. As they have been for so long.

So neither of those options is without excluding as the upshot just that it feels better when it’s indirect rather than direct (but the impact of exclusion is bigger because it’s pinning milder people’s consequences onto those more severe with a more erratic type of illness that gets rebranded as being the person managing the illness erratically etc). It’s another version of the chronic fatigue issue.

So these are important points.


For those who can ur would be interesting to hear if that is some sort of ‘early detection’ or just different use of terms. Is early detection / it warded off actually the same thing though given the pem is the full pattern of stages or the cumulation of whatever then hitting. I’d like to know more about who in this group is getting what because it’s interesting to understand these different components more but if someone is also getting or had classic pem too then the questionnaire doesn’t need to include this to include those people. Or is that the only type of pem they’ve ever had?

Because after an appointment I’ll have to go to bed but I’m tired like people who know how ill I am expect. Maybe for hours or next day too. But the PEM is a different thing albeit I suspect making sure I’ve gone to bed and not pushed thru that means not ‘adding more to the pen when it comes’ so for big enough exertions there is a connection as it gives both exhaustion or fatigue ability at the time /is more than I can really do, AND also is going to give me pen . But when I was less ill it was that first part that wasn’t either in that pattern or operating like normal peoples tired looks so wasn’t acknowledged (not yawning but instead going thru the wall and to outside looking energetic or ‘mad’ to stupid people who wanted to twist it to be unkind) and yet the cumulated PEM was a boom.

I feel like part of me/cfs has always been that the body doesn’t play ball on that ‘pace it nicely’ stuff offering some ‘and you won’t have peaks or troughs or symptoms or not sleeping well times setting your body off for weeks to set right again’ and those who that thing in theory doesn’t work for are just gaslit into managing things wrong when actually often due to circumstance but also I think the way the illness works at least some of us have had at best to ‘follow our good energy times’ not try and pretend it’s some controllable energy if only we just behaved perfectly.

My body wasn’t inconsistent because I was inconsistent and a nice little routine didn’t ’settle it down’ any more than having a ‘not continually overworked and in the red unsustainable weeks’ was better than being in an over demanding dystopia just because I had a less extreme over threshold waiting to hit bursting point earlier with bigger impacts. A less demanding term at uni was more doable to stick to as a routine because my body wasn’t screaming less as I had to wrangle it to fewer commitments and the more demanding term came after when it was also therefore happening just as any cumulative residue from the one before was starting to hit. But neither were about the routine making me either better or being the way of being most productive vs what energy my body had just one left more room for having space to follow my body more within the sparser timetable.

I suspect that ‘something’ was cumulating that ‘became pen’ in the form of a crash or it being pem not ‘fatigue’ because I’d wake up ‘blind tired’ unable to wake my brain, eyes body in a way ‘tired’ people don’t get. And that ‘same thing’ is what’s cumulative in rolling PEM when you sleep off just enough at Strsight to bed after work and in bed all weekend to function just enough to keep cumulating (but including pem and not waking up days on work from home where it takes hours and hours to function) making the shins agony and the word finding issues increase and the dragging the body up more impossible as the days go on until crashing out .

So probably the thing to underline about rolling pem is that cutting short of what any sane human would have as a point where you go back on doing. It’s not ‘overly hopeful’ but masochistic/heartbreaking lack of choice and level of coercion (lose the roof over your head if you don’t do enough two days into a burst ear drum ear infection as no one really acknowledged even a day off or a day late was ok ‘be sick on your own time’ so you live having to ration and force the increasing ‘cumulating level of illness’ into the gaps where your own time and body not being over wired coincide, but it ‘leaks’ as you get to the point of unsustainability by the not being able to wake or not being able to sleep at all).
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of things get repeated so many times that everyone believes them, but may not actually be true. I'd like to know what's actually true about PEM.

So I think we need exploratory studies.

I agree.


The issue about PEM as only a delayed response to exertion is not clear to me. From memory, the Workwell Foundation diagram seems to suggest from their point of view that it's not necessarily that the initiation of PEM is delayed (though it can be), but the presence of it in a delayed pattern, is the best to discriminate from post-exertion effects in other illnesses, e.g. both a pwME and pwMS might look indistinguishable on day 1 in terms of exertion response, but the discriminating point is seeing what is happening 24 hours later.

I'm not sure of the level of research support for the above assertion.

Personally, I don't think I've ever had the GAP between activity trigger and PEM outcome such as that @Mij has experienced. Rather my PEM-like experience seems to start during, immediately or very shortly after an activity and unfold continuously and worsening from there. The worsening includes new symptoms that start hours or the day after, but it's part of an unfolding of illness worsening that starts at the time or pretty soon after the trigger, without a long gap.

In relation to judging what is PEM and what is "PESE" for me, they blur for the above reason. The longer lasting response that seems v. distinctive and "PEM-like" seems to exist on a continuum with the shorter feeling unwell responses. This pattern is clear to me in the last couple of years: the milder the exertion the more the payback trends towards PEF or PESE. The greater the exertion the more distinctive PEM-like quality (or what I think of as that). But is it really a different thing? or more a question of degree?

I think exploratory studies would provide some very interesting insights into different people's experiences. My impression is that there hasn't really been much qualitative research looking at anyone's experiences in any detail.
 
I become much sicker and less able to function for hours, days or longer.
I'll add that during PEM your Deterioration Threshold (the amount of activity it takes to permanently lower your PEM threshold) is lower than usual.

Also as you push through PEM the further you go, the longer it takes to heal. Heal time is how much daily energy you are allocated and if you don't spend it all, what's left over counts toward your healing. If you spend it all that day, then you don't heal.
 
Researchers from the University of Vienna are developing a new PEM questionnaire.

Validation of the Vienna Post-Exertional Malaise Assessment Questionnaire (V-PEM-AQ)​

Dear Participant,

Thank you for your interest in our study. The aim of this investigation is to evaluate a newly developed questionnaire designed to assess Post-Exertional Malaise (PEM) in individuals with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) and Post-COVID-19 Condition (Long COVID).

PEM describes a pathological worsening of existing symptoms following physical, cognitive, emotional, or orthostatic exertion that exceeds the individual’s current tolerance. It is typically characterized by a delayed onset (often 12–48 hours after exertion) and a prolonged recovery period lasting several days or even weeks. This reaction is distinct from ordinary tiredness or fatigue and represents a specific clinical hallmark of these illnesses.

PEM is considered a core diagnostic feature of ME/CFS and is increasingly recognized in Long COVID, yet it has been inadequately assessed to date. Your participation will help us improve the scientific understanding and measurement of this symptom. In the long term, this may contribute to more accurate diagnosis and better-targeted management strategies.

In the first phase of our project, we developed the questionnaire, structured its content, and tested its comprehensibility in a small pilot group. In this second phase, we aim to evaluate how reliably and validly the questionnaire captures PEM and how it compares to existing assessment instruments.

Shared by Rob Wust on Twitter:
 
Posting this question here, since the context is relevance of PEM in ME/CFS criteria.

To those who are familiar with the GWAS datasets: is there information available that would allow to compare the signals found in DecodeME between patients that have PEM and those that don't?
Perhaps indirectly, through something like year of first diagnosis and the criteria likely used at that time? I realise it might be difficult to exclude confounders and reach statistical significance in that case.
 
Posting this question here, since the context is relevance of PEM in ME/CFS criteria.

To those who are familiar with the GWAS datasets: is there information available that would allow to compare the signals found in DecodeME between patients that have PEM and those that don't?
Perhaps indirectly, through something like year of first diagnosis and the criteria likely used at that time? I realise it might be difficult to exclude confounders and reach statistical significance in that case.
Did DecodeME have participants without PEM?
 
To all in this thread: Just very impressed by the views and input regarding PEM! Thanks!
I am presently working on how to get GPs to be better informed and also urged to be "bolder" in diagnosing ME/CFS. Here in Norway I have long lost all belief that consultants/ hospitals can contribute in any sustainable way in diagnosing ME/CFS. In Norway every person is assigned to a GP. That sets the stage for repeated visits to the same doctor. That is a prerequisite for the possibility of a doctor correctly diagnosing ME/CFS.

So: PEM is important to identify for the GP. I am very interested in those posts that have focused on: How can a doctor be adviced as to what questions to ask to identify PEM? I am not talking about a questionnaire here. I agree with Jonathan Edwards that you need human patient-doctor communication in a consultation for the doctor (and not rarely the patient) to understand that the patient has PEM. In other words not a new definition of PEM or measurement of extent/ frequency/ detailed characteristics of PEM. Just is PEM very likely to be present?
As I wrote last year here my take on that is asking:
"If you do very much more than you usually do on a given day because you had to or wanted to, what happened the day and days afterwords? Do feel better and can do a bit more of activities? The same as before that definitely bigger than usual activity? Worse? Please explain to me both the activity was only moto activity or if it was social/cognitive activity or both." I am a pediatrician and have worked with diagnosing/ following children/adolescents since mid 1990s (700+ pwME/CFS). This is done very early in the consultation when ONLY the patient is allowed to answer. Very authoritarian on that to get best info from source. Brainfog may be present and then I want the best minutes saving parents info for a bit later. I don't start with the PEM question above. It is no 2 or 3 after autonomous and cognitive symptoms- so they know me a little bit.

Using this strategy I have never diagnosed ME/CFS (Jason 2006 criteria) without getting a clear description of typical PEM characteristics described - as evidenced in the present thread. The direct reason for the consultation is almost always new and "strange" onset of lack of capacity to attend school in even remotely normal amount.

Gabriel Garcia Marquez states in 1967 novel "One hundred years of solitude" that the only true medical discipline is pediatrics. I agree (..not knowing all the others). Children/ adolescents are very honest and direct. They don't overthink.

So..
Opinions on a very short suggestion of questions a GP could/should ask their patients if ME/CFS long Covid is (or should be!) suspected?
A lot in previously written in this thread informs this for me..

Thanks for your very informative exchanges!
 
As a patient I don’t see how we can ever be assured appropriate care without ME/CFS being properly integrated into the healthcare system, including hospitals and specialists. And I don’t quite understand how a GP could be expected to rule out all relevant differential diagnoses. But seeing as GPs are the gatekeepers in Norway, I fully agree that they need to be in a position to be able to identify possible cases of ME/CFS.

Regardless of what the questions are: if the GPs have no real experience with ME/CFS, how would they know what an ME/CFS answer looks like?
 
Opinions on a very short suggestion of questions a GP could/should ask their patients if ME/CFS long Covid is (or should be!) suspected?
The 2015 IOM/NAM report has a clinician's guide that suggests questions for clinicians to ask. For example, these are the suggested questions for PEM:

• What happens to you as you engage in normal physical or mental exertion? Or after?
• How much activity does it take you to feel ill?
• What symptoms develop from standing or exertion?
• How long does it take to recover from physical or mental effort?
• If you go beyond your limits, what are the later consequences?
• What types of activities do you avoid because of what will happen if you do them?
PEM may be delayed related to the trigger. Consider asking patients to keep a diary for a week or two, documenting activities and symptoms.

You can download the clinicians' guide on this page. Scroll down and click on this option:
1788447754722.webp

Starting on p.11, there's a table, and one column is questions for clinicians.
 
To Utsikt: "..without ME/CFS being properly integrated into the healthcare system, including hospitals and specialists". I agree, but there is no sign of that happening. Quite the opposite in Norway, actually. It is deteriorating. Doctors who get the best evaluation from pwME/CFS are GPs. I don't have full overview, but often (too often) kickstarted by private specialist in ME/CFS.

To Utsikt: Of the questions from the 2015 IOM/NAM ME/CFS Clinicians Guide I think 5 of 6 questions are too diffuse. Its a variety of question 5 that I use: "If you go beyond your limits, what are the later consequences?" Except I change similar to "If you go definitely beyond your limits, what are the later consequences?". Or, as I wrote above: "If you do very much more than you usually do on a given day because you had to or wanted to, what happens the day and days afterwords?"

As several stated previously in this thread- if neither patient nor doctor are knowledgeable about PEM what are good question(s) the doctor could pose to facilitate identifying PEM? I find it quite easy- but I have seen 700+ patients. Still my wording of the question is almost identical every time.
 
I like the idea of a simple PEM questionnaire that is purely intended to help with diagnosis for both clinicians and clinical trials.

The main task, as I see it, is to distinguish the specific phenomenon of PEM from PEF, DOMS, exercise intolerance, fatigability. I think that can be done with a simple one or two questions that describe what an episode of PEM includes, as in our fact sheet, and asks yes/no/not sure whether the person experiences that. It could also have a question describing the other options that are not PEM but may be part of PEM, and asking yes/no/not sure for each of those. That might help both doctors and patients to understand better which versions of responses to exertion apply to them, and therefore whether they are likely or not to have PEM.

There could be supplementary questions asking about types of triggers, changes in symptoms when in and not in PEM, and delay and duration times, but these are more about helping people diagnosed with PEM to manage their activity and cope with symptoms.

As to how to do it. DecodeME designed their own simple one or two questions which seemed to be sensible. That could be a good starting point. Can anyone remind us what they were?

I agree we would need clinicians as part of a team setting this up and probably funding for all the palaver of testing on large samples and validation and publication.

Perhaps the first task of such a team would be to examine any existing tools used for diagnosing PEM and write and get published a critique. I don't want to divert this thread into discussing other questionnaires, I'll just draw attention to the recently published latest version from Leonard Jason, and the Sarah Tyson MEA funded team are develping one. Both have serious flaws.
This one from C-support in the Netherlands is also pretty bad: https://www.zorgvolg.nl/pemcheck.php
 
Doctors who get the best evaluation from pwME/CFS are GPs.
That might be because most hospitals have a very psychosomatic approach to ME/CFS and post-viral issues in general.
As several stated previously in this thread- if neither patient nor doctor are knowledgeable about PEM what are good question(s) the doctor could pose to facilitate identifying PEM? I find it quite easy- but I have seen 700+ patients. Still my wording of the question is almost identical every time.
I have no doubt you’ve got a good process, but I’m wondering how a doctor without knowledge about PEM or ME/CFS (or that has wrong knowledge) would be able to differentiate the answers between someone with PEM and someone without.

People I know that have MS would probably answer quite similarly to me if they were asked about what happens if they definitively go beyond their limits.

There are some other examples in this thread about PEM-like descriptions from non-ME/CFS patients: link
 
In my experience/ to my knowledge for adults hospitals generally don't have any opening/ interest/ responsibility for patients with ME/CFS type symptoms/ disease at all. In pediatrics I agree- they all have a psychosomatic approach- if they have an approach at all. The landscape is therefore very dark. A typical general practitioner in Norway have approximately 1000+ patients- meaning on average 10 patients with ME/CFS-BUT they have most often seen these patients several times. If for nothing else for sick-leave social benefits. So- I believe the soil is more fertile targeting GPs than hospitals.

People I know that have MS would probably answer quite similarly to me if they were asked about what happens if they definitively go beyond their limits.

I do not think the problem is over-diagnosing PEM, but definitely the opposite. So if a very small number of MS patients are designated as having PEM it will not be a problem compared to the massive problem of under-diagnosing PEM in general leadning to lack of identification of ME/CFS/ LC patients by GPs (and other doctors/health personnel).
 
In my experience/ to my knowledge for adults hospitals generally don't have any opening/ interest/ responsibility for patients with ME/CFS type symptoms/ disease at all. In pediatrics I agree- they all have a psychosomatic approach- if they have an approach at all. The landscape is therefore very dark.
Sørlandet Sykehus has an ME/CFS Poliklinikk, but only for second opinions for the adult cases. For some reason they do not do follow up because «there are no recommended treatments». As if that has ever stopped Neurology from following up MS cases that have no treatments left.. They also do not do any home visits so the severe are excluded.
I do not think the problem is over-diagnosing PEM, but definitely the opposite. So if a very small number of MS patients are designated as having PEM it will not be a problem compared to the massive problem of under-diagnosing PEM in general leadning to lack of identification of ME/CFS/ LC patients by GPs (and other doctors/health personnel).
I think the problem with false positives for PEM is that the doctors might then try to apply interventions they think work for the false positive cases of PEM onto the ME/CFS cases. They might think that this PEM thing is quite common, so why make special accommodations for the ME/CFS cases? That seems to be the prevailing narrative from the BPS folks and from people with no direct ties to those circles.

It might also stop them from following leads for alternative diagnoses, potentially giving people with treatable conditions an ME/CFS diagnosis.

And if they actually are able to identify ME/CFS cases more often, they might still just follow the official guidance and make them worse before the patients are able to figure out on their own that CBT or exercise doesn’t help. So we need more than just enabling GPs to identify the cases, especially when the BPS folks are trying to get ME/CFS put under a generic chronic fatigue/persistent symptoms label and the new guidelines will make this phenomenon even worse.
 
Back
Top Bottom