This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their systematic review of interventions for chronic fatigue syndrome, Ms Whiting and colleagues¹ gave my research² a low validity score. It was rated as "poor" in 5 categories: baseline comparability of groups, follow-up, dropouts, appropriateness of controls, and control for confounding. However, several trials assessing cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which used the same test to control for confounding, had higher dropout rates, and marked differences in baseline scores, were rated as "good." Whiting et al also failed to acknowledge measures in my study that assessed fatigue, disability, and activity. These should have been listed under physical outcomes but Table 2 only refers to the psychological variables and quality of life/health status.

The harshness of the authors' evaluation of my study contrasts sharply with their evaluation of the study by Sharpe et al,³ which was published the same year I completed my dissertation. For example, Whiting et . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Interventions for the Treatment and Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Systematic Review
Penny Whiting, Anne-Marie Bagnall, Amanda J. Sowden, John E. Cornell, Cynthia D. Mulrow, and Gilbert Ramírez
JAMA. 2001;286(11):1360-1368.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT