Systematic Review of Mind-Body Interventions to Treat Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 2021, Ardestani et al

Abstract
Background and Objectives: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a chronic condition distinguished by disabling fatigue associated with post-exertional malaise, as well as changes to sleep, autonomic functioning, and cognition.

Mind-body interventions (MBIs) utilize the ongoing interaction between the mind and body to improve health and wellbeing. Purpose: To systematically review studies using MBIs for the treatment of ME/CFS symptoms.

Materials and Methods:
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched (inception to September 2020). Interventional studies on adults diagnosed with ME/CFS, using one of the MBIs in comparison with any placebo, standard of care treatment or waitlist control, and measuring outcomes relevant to the signs and symptoms of ME/CFS and quality of life were assessed for inclusion. Characteristics and findings of the included studies were summarized using a descriptive approach.

Results:
12 out of 382 retrieved references were included. Seven studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with one including three reports (1 RCT, 2 single-arms); others were single-arm trials. Interventions included mindfulness-based stress reduction, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, relaxation, Qigong, cognitive-behavioral stress management, acceptance and commitment therapy and isometric yoga. The outcomes measured most often were fatigue severity, anxiety/depression, and quality of life. Fatigue severity and symptoms of anxiety/depression were improved in nine and eight studies respectively, and three studies found that MBIs improved quality of life.

Conclusions:
Fatigue severity, anxiety/depression and physical and mental functioning were shown to be improved in patients receiving MBIs. However, small sample sizes, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and a high risk of bias may challenge this result. Further research using standardized outcomes would help advance the field.

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/7/652

 

Three 'patient research partners' are co-authors.

Another co-author is Eleanor Stein.

Hm.

(I don't understand how something "was shown to be improved" when it's acknowledged that the studies had "small sample sizes, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and a high risk of bias". Isn't there a rule to word conclusions so that they aren't misleading?)

 

I don't understand why they only got 7 studies out of this. There are hundreds of them going back decades, including years of use in standard practice in many countries. What kind of joke profession is this?

A field in a perpetual state of amnesia where neither criticism not accountability exist. Of what use is this and to whom? Besides being a gigantic jobs program where people can just churn the same copy-paste stuff for an entire career?

 

Exactly!

 

Research utilising standardised outcomes DESIGNED BY patients may indeed advance the field by eliminating all of the treatments that don't work.

'patient research partners' doesn't mean ME patient.

Here is the profile of one of those partners:
https://sciprofiles.com/profile/1679339