Talk:Functional somatic syndrome

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cjhenry123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of info from lead
The info was removed form lead at it was unsourced, so I removed it. You might want to check out some of the wikipedia policies WP:COMPETENCE, WP:CIVIL, WP:MEDRS, WP:RS.Petergstrom (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The place of ME/CFS in this article
Hi @BlenFans (replying because you reverted my change) just wanted to say this page’s characterisation of ME/CFS as a FSS is outdated. It seems that in the current medical literature ME/CFS is considered as a biological condition without clearly defined aetiology but with consistent findings of abnormalities. You can see the Wikipedia article for ME/CFS itself which has been greatly improved recently, is classified as a good article, and is well on its way to becoming a featured article. (similar comment to the one in MUPS as it is for the same reason)

Here are some sources anyways:

‘CFS, although still medically unexplained, does not fulfil the earlier, agreed upon criteria for somatisation disorder, and our findings provide additional evidence for specifically using the diagnosis of CFS (or ME/CFS) rather than including it in the broad category of “somatic symptom disorder.”’ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07853890.2019.1683601?journalCode=iann20

‘numerous studies over time have uncovered organic abnormalities in patients with ME/CFS, and the majority of researchers to date classify the disease as organic’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10819994/

There is much more evidence on the ME/CFS wikipedia page. Due to this evidence I think ME/CFS should be removed from the FSS wikipedia page, or at the very least there should be an acknowledgment that its status as a Functional Somatic Syndrome is controversial.

Additionally the citation which is used to justify the classification of ME/CFS as a FSS, does classify me/cfs as a FSS but the study is actually focused on something else, it doesn’t argue for the classification of Me/cfs as an FSS in itself.

Thanks :) (from someone who spends way too much time reading me/cfs research.) YannLK (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * First of all, I think you are making an error by assuming that MUPS/FSS isn't biological. It is. (It's not feigning or imaginary illness). Second, just because one source says an illness is a MUPS/FSS and another source says it is not is *not* a reason to simply remove one source. On the contrary, according to wikipedia rules we should include both viewpoints (based on weight, and following NPOV, of course).
 * So, yes, I think it would make more sense to add an acknowledgement that its status as an FSS is controversial. BlenFans (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes I that that compromise makes sense.
 * What do you think about a something like:
 * The status of ME/CFS as a functional somatic syndrome is contested. Although the aetiology remains unclear, there are consistent findings of biological abnormalities, and major health bodies such as the CDC, WHO, and NIH, classify it as an organic disease.
 * sources: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07853890.2019.1683601?journalCode=iann20 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10819994/
 * And relevant CDC, NIH, and WHO pages. YannLK (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)