Article type
Year
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a controversial entity in that potentially relevant data to its study spans many disciplines. It therefore offers an excellent opportunity to test whether in an area requiring more than usually good reviewing skills an adequate level of methodological rigour has been present. The intense media interest surrounding this particular subject amplifies the importance of any revealed biases.
Objective: To examine 1) the initial selection of literature on which each review is based 2) how conclusions on aetiology and treatment and citation of important papers of significant positive or negative findings is influenced by the authors personal and professional biases including discipline and nationality.
Methods: All editorials, general reviews and reviews of treatment of CFS between 1980 and 1996 from both English and non English language journals were included. Any papers clearly labelled as dealing with a specialist aspect of CFS were excluded. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE (BIDS), CURRENT CONTENTS and PSYCHLIT using keywords chronic fatigue, postviral (post viral) and myalgic encephalomyelitis. Methodological quality was assessed as follows
1. Note was made of any comment on the literature search made.
2. The number of references to each paper was counted and they were tabulated by assigning them to specialty categories by article title. Patterns of intra-review and inter-review variation in use of references from each category was demonstrated numerically by chi square test and plotted graphically using Multidimensional Scaling (MDS).
3. Any concluding comments on aetiology or treatment and use of key citations in relation to the discipline and nationality of the first author were analysed by regression techniques.
Results: The number of relevant articles identified was over 300 (306).
Discussion: Preliminary results confirm our hypothesis that overviews of CFS have accessed relevant important literature in different disciplines pertinent to it in a less than systematic manner and have been marred by nonselective citation.
Objective: To examine 1) the initial selection of literature on which each review is based 2) how conclusions on aetiology and treatment and citation of important papers of significant positive or negative findings is influenced by the authors personal and professional biases including discipline and nationality.
Methods: All editorials, general reviews and reviews of treatment of CFS between 1980 and 1996 from both English and non English language journals were included. Any papers clearly labelled as dealing with a specialist aspect of CFS were excluded. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE (BIDS), CURRENT CONTENTS and PSYCHLIT using keywords chronic fatigue, postviral (post viral) and myalgic encephalomyelitis. Methodological quality was assessed as follows
1. Note was made of any comment on the literature search made.
2. The number of references to each paper was counted and they were tabulated by assigning them to specialty categories by article title. Patterns of intra-review and inter-review variation in use of references from each category was demonstrated numerically by chi square test and plotted graphically using Multidimensional Scaling (MDS).
3. Any concluding comments on aetiology or treatment and use of key citations in relation to the discipline and nationality of the first author were analysed by regression techniques.
Results: The number of relevant articles identified was over 300 (306).
Discussion: Preliminary results confirm our hypothesis that overviews of CFS have accessed relevant important literature in different disciplines pertinent to it in a less than systematic manner and have been marred by nonselective citation.