Talk:Clinical descriptions of ME/CFS/Archive 1

Found on the German Wikipedia
Putting this here in advance of the move as I don't want to add to the distractions getting in the way.

Where might we put a version of this chart? -- Strangelv (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Translated to Englischish by babelfish.altvista.digital.com:

Severity scale
A scale of the severity levels with CFS after Dr. David S. Bell

Split
Split article from Chronic fatigue syndrome per talk. As with more than one split off section, the summary in the main article is in much better shape -- work is needed here. -- Strangelv (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this page for?
The page really, really looks like a content fork for some other page. I'm not even sure for what, but certainly the text could be integrated into the history, controversy, naming, pathophisiology, etiology or some other article related to CFS. Is it about differening diagnostic criteria, as suggested by the title? In which case it should be moved to diagnostic criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome. WLU (t) (c) (rules – simple rules) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * renamed to "clinical descriptions of CFS", what I think it was trying to get at. WLU (t) (c) (rules –  simple rules) 18:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a content fork. There is a great multitude of definitions for CFS, and we can't put them all in the main article. CFS is a working diagnosis, so its definition is adjusted often for better patient selection; these are not all controversies. Note that the Canadian definition is a ME/CFS hybrid seeking to fix CFS at the same point as ME. With the definition of ME not in the article, this particular move is actually ok, except that 'descriptions' should be 'definitions' or 'criteria'. The text still needs considerable work. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged. WLU reverted again. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ME?
I probably shouldn't say this, as it will likely stir up yet another hornet's nest, but should Ramsay's definition of ME be included here? I don't particularly care either way, just putting it here for discussion. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fine to ask, but: why? This article is about CFS now, not ME. The definition of ME should go in the main ME article. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Because, as has been discussed before, CFS and ME are almost synonymous. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion had the opposite outcome. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it a POV fork?
without prejudice to any of the fundamental questions, I declined a prod on this because it seems rational to be that the various definitions used now and in the past should have a place here. It would probably confuse the main article to include them all. It should get to more than just the definitions and the references for them, and I do not see what is wrong with having them if the article gets them right &  doesn't draw conclusions. But section 3 has no place here--it's a different topic. As for section 2, the discussion of the  validity of the different definitions does seem somewhat problematic and incomplete. A simple reference to evaluations would probably be better in the individual sections. DGG (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but note that testing is part of some of the definitions. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

POV fork on Jason LA
Weird, half the sources are from Jason LA, this article is not about clinical descriptions now, it is a POV fork about Jasons ideas about subgroups and mainstream medical opinion is wrong. It should get changed so it does not base from primary literature by this author in minor journals, more major reviews. RetroS1mone  talk  03:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I count 2 out of 14 but by all means, add more sources. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now 3 from JAson, another one from his nonrs journal. Before my edits there were 8 from Jason, that is not good weight for some one that is not medically qualified and in low impact journals. RetroS1mone   talk  22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He is a notable author is the field, who has published frequently on this topic, but yes, that would be overweight. There are plenty of other authors with relevant publications, too. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So 2 or 3 citations of Jason out of 14 is a "POV fork"? What would an even higher proportion of Wessely citations be then? - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 03:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at RetroS1mone's second comment, originally there were more. Probably this version, or something close.  In this case, references 8-20 were in a single section (issues with definitions, essentially "controversies").  In this case, it was indeed an over-representation of Jason – 9 out of 13 of the sources listed him as an author.  These also aren't The Lancet or JAMA, so representativeness is an issue.  The current 3 is more reasonable.  I don't see any references to Wessely here, I assume you're talking about another article?  WLU (t) (c) (rules –  simple rules) 12:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wessely is a world known scholar w/ hundreds articles in good sources about lots of subjects. RetroS1mone   talk  03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RetroS1mone's reverts
And yes, within no-time, all my edits (well, not all, one must be fair) get reverted again by User:RetroS1mone. Please, check the sources. These authors did not all work at the CDC, etc. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, they are called the CDC criteria. Many authors were with the CDC or working on a task force led by CDC, the description was adopted by CDC. RetroS1mone   talk  01:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if the latter were true (where is your source?), that is not what the current text says. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But let's score google hits, for starters, to get the common folk first ((gross, didn't check net). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "CDC 1988 criteria" – 84 hits / 45 when excluding Wikipedia
 * "Holmes criteria" – 654 hits / 530
 * "CDC 1994 criteria" – 645 hits / 555
 * "Fukuda criteria" – 1510 hits / 1330

This is simply untrue, on both counts. Holmes does not exclude all psychiatric diagnoses, just a list of specific ones, and Fukuda does exactly the same. Holmes requiring 8 secondary symptoms is not correct either. Read the source! Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Unlike the 1994 CDC criteria, the Holmes criteria exclude patients with psychiatric diagnoses and require the presence of eight secondary symptoms, not just four."
 * original research, your interpretations, a google search, sorry when i don't bother. RetroS1mone   talk  01:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you do bother. OR, yes, but yours. Read the source!:

From Do these last four sound like CDC to you? You make a claim, so you must provide evidence. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia;
 * the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland;
 * Prince Henry Hospital and University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia;
 * University of Oxford and Warneford Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom;
 * and Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.

This is the opinion of the NICE guideline authors, and not a fact. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Use of this definition is discouraged by the National Health Services in England and Wales, since it makes assumptions about cause when none has been recognized and is thus judged as too restrictive"

Guido, your above Google searches are not representative (way too restrictive for the CDC). When you Google something like "CDC criteria" 1994 cfs -wikipedia, you get 5500 results, not the 555 you listed above. . The same search with 1998 gets 4060 results, not 45(!). A comparable search for "Holmes criteria" cfs -wikipedia gets only 359 hits, i.e. less than one tenth of the CDC.. "Fukuda criteria" cfs -wikipedia gets 1050 hits. Google hits are not a very good indicator anyway, but they don't support you in this case when used properly. Fram (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, thanks (note though that the abbreviation cfs has multiple medical meanings). I tried to search Pubmed but apparently that's not so easy or revealing (maybe I did it wrong). Anyway, I've sent a mail to the CDC to try and clear this up once and for all. The current text is stil incorrect either way. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And in any case, the random number of google hits is less important than the scholarly opinion. It doesn't really matter why it's called the CDC criteria, or if it's a intellectually truthful name.  What matters is what is used.  If the majority use CDC criteria, that's what we should use.  If in some journal article there's a discussion of why it's called the CDC, we should cite that.  Otherwise, it's one of the less important things to discuss and describe on the page.  WLU (t) (c) (rules –  simple rules) 12:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on Guido you say I will not respond on talk page, sorry this is not my full time job. Pls stop saying the CDC criteria are Fukuda, you want people to think this is just one person, the weight of CDC is behind it. OK CDC and other people but it is the CDC criteria, everyone calls it that! The opinion of NICE guideline authors, that is why i say judged, and it does make assumptions so there is nothing wrong with language. And pls stop adding non medrs. Thx RetroS1mone   talk  21:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't make out what you're saying. Please stop reverting my every edit and putting all kinds of original research back in. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I will go on WP policies and guidelines like medrs and undue wieght and oppose COI fringe POV. Thx, RetroS1mone   talk  04:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest that you enter into dicussion when you notice a difference of opinion, and explain your edits when asked. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep inserting this into the text, when it's not in the provided source? What is the source of this bold statement? It is not true, e.g. treadmill/bicycle tests are generally accepted, as is the SF36. What is true is that you can't diagnose CFS with one single test (yet), but that is not the same. The article should be accurate. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Use of this definition is discouraged by the National Health Services in England and Wales, since it makes assumptions about cause when none has been recognized and is thus judged as too restrictive."
 * "There is no generally accepted diagnostic test to reliably diagnose or exclude chronic fatigue syndrome."
 * I've commented out the "discouraged by..." sentence pending a source that more clearly verifies the text. Guido, what citations do you have that exercise tests and SF36 are reliable/generally accepted?  Even if true, the text would still be accurate since there is not one test, but there are two, but that could certainly be clarified.  But there needs to be a source stating exercise tests and SF36 are generally accepted, widely seen as reliable, are the current gold standard, or some other information indicating they are preferred in the absence of anything that is more conclusive.  I'm not being a dick on this one, I'm open to the modification, but collectively the articles have hundreds of citations and thousands of characters so it's a lot to read.  If it's present in a sub-section of a mainpage article, point me there and I'll review.  WLU (t) (c) (rules –  simple rules) 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why I changed the text into "there is no single generally accepted test".[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clinical_descriptions_of_chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=254522207&oldid=254521461]

A good source for the SF36 may be The SF36 is often used for patient selection in scientific research.
 * Buchwald D, Pearlman T, Umali J, Schmaling K, Katon W (1996), "Functional status in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, other fatiguing illnesses, and healthy individuals", Am J Med 171:364-70

There are a zillion sources for exercise tests. In my own 2008 article on testing for ME/CFS I mentioned as interesting: These sources came from our literature search for the Dutch guideline. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * De Becker P, Roeykens J, Reynders M, McGregor N, De Meirleir K (2000), "Exercise capacity in chronic fatigue syndrome", Arch Intern.Med 160[21], 3270-3277
 * Cook DB, Nagelkirk PR, Peckerman A, Poluri A, Lamanca JJ, Natelson BH (2003), "Perceived exertion in fatiguing illness: civilians with chronic fatigue syndrome", Med Sci Sports Exerc. 35[4], 563-568
 * VanNess JM, Snell CR, Stevens SR, Bateman L, Keller BA (2006), "Using Serial Cardiopulmonary Exercise Tests to Support a Diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome", Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: Volume 38(5) Supplement May p S85
 * Cordero DL, Sisto SA, Tapp WN, Lamanca JJ, Pareja JG, Natelson BH (1996), "Decreased vagal power during treadmill walking in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome", Clin Auton.Res 6[6], 329-333
 * Peckerman A, LaManca JJ, Dahl KA, Chemitiganti R, Qureishi B, Natelson BH (2003), "Abnormal impedance cardiography predicts symptom severity in chronic fatigue syndrome", Am J Med Sci 326[2], 55-60
 * Is there a more recent review article on SF36 that you know of? That would be the most useful type of citation.  VanNess 2006 would probably be a good candidate to support the exercise test.  WLU (t) (c) (rules –  simple rules) 19:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment on "I've commented out the "discouraged by..." written by WLU 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC). I searched through the citation and also do not find verification of the material, "The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales discourages use of this "stringent" definition, challenging that the biology is not yet recognized and is thus judged as too restrictive." One table (pg. 152) said three NCC-PC reviewers didn't recommend the Canadian definition for reasons other than what is stated above. The table also had offsetting positive comments on rigour from NZGG. I will replace the wording with verifiable text. Ward20 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition table
Please discuss below, I'll maintain the table. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than using the above, HTML(?) style of table, may I suggest adapting to a simpler wikitable? It's easier to modify and other editors will be more familiar with the style (in addition to the ability to use Help:Table).  It'd basically look like this, with the option to specify column widths, and full wiki markup is available (may be true for the XHTML also, but per Help:Table you can't combine).  I also prefer the table having lines to divide columns and rows.  It's tedious, but not difficult, and I can do it if no-one else wants to.  WLU (t) (c) (rules –  simple rules) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikitable has the awful drawback that no width can be set per column. Lines can be added to the HTML table just as well (in memory, wikitable is in fact a simplified HTML table). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikitables can be set to both pixel-based or percent-based column widths. Help:Table and lines are set automatically.  I've adjusted so in the example table, and I find it much easier to read than the above one, mostly because of the separation of columns.  Again, I think the table is a useful tool, but for ease of editing I think the wikitable is the better choice.  My offer to convert stands, but once the general mapping between the two styles is set up, it's easy enough to do.  I'm not sure if the font size can be adjusted besides the use of  tags for each entry.  WLU (t) (c) (rules –  simple rules) 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is what the table would look like as a wikitable. I have no problems with it being edited. WLU (t) (c) (rules – simple rules) 00:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Centered cells. Another change I would suggest would be the addition of footnotes to the criteria in the column headings.  I think I screwed up the first two rows, but it's an example, not exact.  WLU (t) (c) (rules –  simple rules) 02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pediatric Case Definition needs to be added
A Pediatric Case Definition for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Ward20 (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

De Meirleir's new diagnostic test
Dr. De Meirleir just published the results of a study on severe, bedridden M.E. patients in Norway. He presented his findings last week at a conference in London.

He has developed a new diagnostic test. Should this be mentioned in this article?

Here are the links to his presentations and summary of his study:

Thanks!

Kosovokelly (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I responded here.--sciencewatcher (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulk-revert Concerns
My concerns with the recent bulk reversions are simply that they're just that: bulk reversions. Some may have merit, but clearly, others are non-controversial edits of links, grammar, etc. If there are concerns with only some of the edits, then only those edits should be reverted, and the reasons should be discussed here on the talk page (as with any controversial subject). In the absence of an explanation of the reversions, I reverted them on the above grounds.

Now that the edits are being taken one-by-one, I think we can work together to get the best possible text in here. In my most recent edit (made roughly simultaneously with this note), I've kept the CDC 1994 reference, as that makes the most sense here. I did, however, change the wording to indicate that these are research guidelines, as clearly indicated within the source itself. I also moved the "1994" wording just for easier reading. I'm not sure about the "international group of researchers" wording, and am happy to defer to others as to the best wording there. --Rob (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The researchers weren't with the CDC, they were from several organizations (and known as the International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group). They were led by the CDC. The Ann Intern Med published the case definition, the researchers proposed the revised definition. Also, please be careful about specifying the year of the CDC criteria since the CDC was involved with the 1988, the 1994, and the 2003 publications. Each revision is different. Ward20 (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)