Brurberg Kjetil Gundro, Fønhus Marita Sporstøl, Larun Lillebeth, Flottorp Signe, Malterud Kirsti
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway.
BMJ Open. 2014 Feb 7;4(2):e003973. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003973.
To identify case definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), and explore how the validity of case definitions can be evaluated in the absence of a reference standard.
Systematic review.
International.
A literature search, updated as of November 2013, led to the identification of 20 case definitions and inclusion of 38 validation studies.
Validation studies were assessed for risk of bias and categorised according to three validation models: (1) independent application of several case definitions on the same population, (2) sequential application of different case definitions on patients diagnosed with CFS/ME with one set of diagnostic criteria or (3) comparison of prevalence estimates from different case definitions applied on different populations.
A total of 38 studies contributed data of sufficient quality and consistency for evaluation of validity, with CDC-1994/Fukuda as the most frequently applied case definition. No study rigorously assessed the reproducibility or feasibility of case definitions. Validation studies were small with methodological weaknesses and inconsistent results. No empirical data indicated that any case definition specifically identified patients with a neuroimmunological condition.
Classification of patients according to severity and symptom patterns, aiming to predict prognosis or effectiveness of therapy, seems useful. Development of further case definitions of CFS/ME should be given a low priority. Consistency in research can be achieved by applying diagnostic criteria that have been subjected to systematic evaluation.
确定慢性疲劳综合征/肌痛性脑脊髓炎(CFS/ME)的病例定义,并探讨在缺乏参考标准的情况下如何评估病例定义的有效性。
系统评价。
国际范围。
截至2013年11月更新的文献检索,共识别出20种病例定义,并纳入38项验证研究。
对验证研究进行偏倚风险评估,并根据三种验证模型进行分类:(1)对同一人群独立应用多种病例定义;(2)对根据一套诊断标准诊断为CFS/ME的患者依次应用不同的病例定义;(3)比较应用于不同人群的不同病例定义的患病率估计值。
共有38项研究提供了质量和一致性足以评估有效性的数据,其中CDC-1994/福田标准是最常应用的病例定义。没有研究严格评估病例定义的可重复性或可行性。验证研究规模较小,存在方法学缺陷且结果不一致。没有实证数据表明任何病例定义能特异性识别患有神经免疫疾病的患者。
根据严重程度和症状模式对患者进行分类,旨在预测预后或治疗效果,似乎是有用的。CFS/ME进一步病例定义的制定应给予较低优先级。通过应用经过系统评估的诊断标准可以实现研究的一致性。