Suppr超能文献

慢性疲劳综合征的认知行为疗法:一项多中心随机对照试验。

Cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

作者信息

Prins J B, Bleijenberg G, Bazelmans E, Elving L D, de Boo T M, Severens J L, van der Wilt G J, Spinhoven P, van der Meer J W

机构信息

Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Lancet. 2001 Mar 17;357(9259):841-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04198-2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) seems a promising treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but the applicability of this treatment outside specialised settings has been questioned. We compared CBT with guided support groups and the natural course in a randomised trial at three centres.

METHODS

Of 476 patients diagnosed with CFS, 278 were eligible and willing to take part. 93 were randomly assigned CBT (administered by 13 therapists recently trained in this technique for CFS), 94 were assigned the support-group approach, and 91 the control natural course. Multidimensional assessments were done at baseline, 8 months, and 14 months. The primary outcome variables were fatigue severity (on the checklist individual strength) and functional impairment (on the sickness impact profile) at 8 and 14 months. Data were analysed by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

241 patients had complete data (83 CBT, 80 support groups, 78 natural course) at 8 months. At 14 months CBT was significantly more effective than both control conditions for fatigue severity (CBT vs support groups 5.8 [2.2-9.4]; CBT vs natural course 5.6 [2.1-9.0]) and for functional impairment (CBT vs support groups 263 [38-488]; CBT vs natural course 222 [3-441]). Support groups were not more effective for CFS patients than the natural course. Among the CBT group, clinically significant improvement was seen in fatigue severity for 20 of 58 (35%), in Karnofsky performance status for 28 of 57 (49%), and self-rated improvement for 29 of 58 (50%). Prognostic factors for outcome after CBT were a higher sense of control predicting more improvement, and a passive activity pattern and focusing on bodily symptoms predicting less improvement.

INTERPRETATION

CBT was more effective than guided support groups and the natural course in a multicentre trial with many therapists. Our study showed a lower proportion of patients with improvement than CBT trials with a few highly skilled therapists.

摘要

背景

认知行为疗法(CBT)似乎是治疗慢性疲劳综合征(CFS)的一种有前景的方法,但这种疗法在专业机构以外的适用性受到了质疑。我们在三个中心进行的一项随机试验中,将CBT与引导式支持小组及自然病程进行了比较。

方法

在476名被诊断为CFS的患者中,278名符合条件且愿意参与。93名被随机分配接受CBT(由13名最近接受过针对CFS的该技术培训的治疗师实施),94名被分配接受支持小组方法,91名接受对照自然病程。在基线、8个月和14个月时进行了多维度评估。主要结局变量是8个月和14个月时的疲劳严重程度(使用个人力量清单)和功能损害(使用疾病影响概况)。数据按意向性分析。

结果

241名患者在8个月时有完整数据(83名接受CBT,80名接受支持小组,78名接受自然病程)。在14个月时,CBT在疲劳严重程度方面(CBT与支持小组对比,5.8 [2.2 - 9.4];CBT与自然病程对比,5.6 [2.1 - 9.0])和功能损害方面(CBT与支持小组对比,263 [38 - 488];CBT与自然病程对比,222 [3 - 441])均显著优于两种对照情况。支持小组对CFS患者并不比自然病程更有效。在CBT组中,58名患者中有20名(35%)的疲劳严重程度有临床显著改善,57名患者中有28名(49%)的卡氏功能状态有改善,58名患者中有29名(50%)自评有改善。CBT治疗后结局的预后因素是较高的控制感预示着更多改善,而被动活动模式和关注身体症状预示着较少改善。

解读

在一项有许多治疗师参与的多中心试验中,CBT比引导式支持小组和自然病程更有效。我们的研究显示,与由少数高技能治疗师进行的CBT试验相比,改善的患者比例更低。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验