Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis

  • Peter D White
  • , Susan Abbey
  • , Brian Angus
  • , Harriet A Ball
  • , Dedra Buchwald
  • , Christine Burness
  • , Alan Carson
  • , Trudie Chalder
  • , et al.
  • St Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry
  • Toronto General Hospital
  • University of Oxford
  • University of Bristol
  • Washington State University
  • The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
  • Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, UK

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

28 Citations (Scopus)
279 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a disabling long-term condition of unknown cause. The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) published a guideline in 2021 that highlighted the seriousness of the condition, but also recommended that graded exercise therapy (GET) should not be used and cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) should only be used to manage symptoms and reduce distress, not to aid recovery. This U-turn in recommendations from the previous 2007 guideline is controversial.

We suggest that the controversy stems from anomalies in both processing and interpretation of the evidence by the NICE committee. The committee: 1) Created a new definition of CFS/ME, which “down-graded” the certainty of trial evidence; 2) Omitted data from standard trial end points used to assess efficacy; 3) Discounted trial data when assessing treatment harm in favour of lower quality surveys and qualitative studies; 4) Minimized the importance of fatigue as an outcome; 5) Did not use accepted practices to synthesise and GRADE trial evidence; 6) Interpreted GET as mandating fixed increments of change when trials defined it as collaborative, negotiated, and symptom dependent; 7) Deviated from NICE recommendations of rehabilitation for related conditions, such as chronic primary pain; 8) Recommended an energy management approach in the absence of supportive research evidence.

We conclude that the dissonance between this and the previous guideline was the result of deviating from usual scientific standards of the NICE process. The consequences of this are that patients may be denied helpful treatments and therefore risk persistent ill health and disability.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 3 May 2023

Keywords

  • chronic fatigue syndrome
  • myalgic encephalomyelitis
  • National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence
  • management
  • treatment
  • cognitive behaviour therapy
  • graded exercise therapy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this