Department of Integrative Medicine, Graduate School of Integrative Medicine, CHA University, 335 Pangyo-ro, Sungnam-si, Bundang-gu, 13488, Gyeonggi-do, Korea.
Department of Korean Medicine, Institute of Bioscience and Integrative Medicine, Daejeon University, 62 Daehak-ro, Dong-gu, Daejeon, 300-716, Republic of Korea.
J Transl Med. 2022 Jan 3;20(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s12967-021-03219-0.
Because of the absence of biological parameters for fatigue, appropriate instruments for assessing the degree of fatigue are important in the diagnosis and management of people complaining of fatigue-like symptoms. This study statistically analyzed the fatigue scores from two typical questionnaire-based instruments: the Korean version of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-K) and the modified Chalder Fatigue Scale (mKCFQ).
Seventy participants (males n = 40, females n = 30, median age 48 years old, range of 25-67) were grouped into three groups ('mild' = 20, 'moderate' = 42, and 'severe' = 8) according to self-reported fatigue levels using a 7-point Likert scale. The similarities and differences between two instrument-derived scores were analyzed using correlations (r) and multidimensional scaling (MDS).
The total scores of the two assessments were significantly correlated (r = 75%, p < 0.001), as were the subscores ('Total Physical fatigue': r = 76%, p < 0.001, 'Total Mental fatigue': r = 56%, p < 0.001). Relative overestimation of the MFI-K (45.8 ± 11.3) compared to the mKCFQ (36.1 ± 16.2) was observed, which was especially prominent in the 'mild' group. The scores of the three groups were more easily distinguished by the mKCFQ than by the MFI-K. In terms of the five dimension scores, we found a higher correlation of the two assessments for 'general fatigue' (r = 79%, p < 0.001) and 'physical fatigue' (r = 66%, p < 0.001) than for the reductions in 'motivation' (r = 41%, p < 0.01) and 'activity' (r = 26%, p > 0.05).
Our results may indicate the usefulness of the two instruments, especially for the physical symptoms of fatigue ('general' and 'physical' fatigue). Furthermore, the MFI-K may be useful for conditions of moderate-to-severe fatigue, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, but the mKCFQ may be useful for all spectra of fatigue, including in subhealthy people.
由于缺乏疲劳的生物学参数,因此评估疲劳程度的适当仪器对于诊断和管理有疲劳样症状的患者非常重要。本研究通过统计学分析了两种基于问卷的典型仪器的疲劳评分:多维疲劳清单(MFI-K)的韩语版本和改良的查尔德疲劳量表(mKCFQ)。
70 名参与者(男性 n = 40,女性 n = 30,中位数年龄 48 岁,范围 25-67)根据自我报告的疲劳程度,使用 7 点李克特量表分为三组(“轻度”= 20,“中度”= 42,“重度”= 8)。使用相关性(r)和多维标度(MDS)分析两种仪器衍生分数之间的相似性和差异。
两种评估的总分显着相关(r = 75%,p <0.001),“总身体疲劳”(r = 76%,p <0.001)和“总心理疲劳”(r = 56%,p <0.001)的子分数也显着相关。与 mKCFQ(36.1 ± 16.2)相比,MFI-K 的相对高估(45.8 ± 11.3)被观察到,尤其是在“轻度”组中更为明显。mKCFQ 比 MFI-K 更容易区分三组的评分。就五个维度的分数而言,我们发现两种评估方法在“一般疲劳”(r = 79%,p <0.001)和“身体疲劳”(r = 66%,p <0.001)方面的相关性更高,而在“动机”(r = 41%,p <0.01)和“活动”(r = 26%,p > 0.05)方面的相关性较低。
我们的结果可能表明这两种仪器都很有用,特别是对于疲劳的身体症状(“一般”和“身体”疲劳)。此外,MFI-K 可能对中度至重度疲劳(如慢性疲劳综合征)有用,但 mKCFQ 可能对包括亚健康人群在内的所有疲劳谱都有用。