Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Medicine and BioMed Central.

Journal App

google play app store
Open Access Research article

An evaluation of exclusionary medical/psychiatric conditions in the definition of chronic fatigue syndrome

James F Jones1*, Jin-Mann S Lin1, Elizabeth M Maloney1, Roumiana S Boneva1, Urs M Nater12, Elizabeth R Unger1 and William C Reeves1

Author Affiliations

1 Chronic Viral Diseases Branch, Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, MS A15, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA

2 University of Zurich, Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Binzmuehlestrasse 14/Box 26, Zurich 8050, Switzerland

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Medicine 2009, 7:57  doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-57

Published: 12 October 2009

Abstract

Background

The diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in research studies requires the exclusion of subjects with medical and psychiatric conditions that could confound the analysis and interpretation of results. This study compares illness parameters between individuals with CFS who have and those who do not have exclusionary conditions.

Methods

We used a population-based telephone survey of randomly selected individuals, followed by a clinical evaluation in the study metropolitan, urban, and rural counties of Georgia, USA. The medical and psychiatric histories of the subjects were examined and they underwent physical and psychiatric examinations and laboratory screening. We also employed the multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI), the medical outcomes survey short form-36 (SF-36) and the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention symptom inventory (SI).

Results

Twenty-nine percent (1,609) of the 5623 subjects who completed the detailed telephone interview reported exclusionary diagnoses and we diagnosed an exclusionary condition in 36% of 781 clinically evaluated subjects. Both medical and psychiatric exclusionary conditions were more common in women, blacks and participants from rural areas. Subjects with and without exclusions had similar levels of fatigue and impairment as measured by the MFI and SF-36; those with CFS-like illness (not meeting the formal CFS definition) were more likely to have an exclusionary diagnosis. After adjusting for demographics, body mass index, fatigue subscales, SF-36 subscales and CFS symptoms, CFS-like illness did not remain significantly associated with having an exclusionary diagnosis.

Conclusion

Medical and psychiatric illnesses associated with fatigue are common among the unwell. Those who fulfill CFS-like criteria need to be evaluated for potentially treatable conditions. Those with exclusionary conditions are equally impaired as those without exclusions.