↓ Skip to main content

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: The Need for Subtypes

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychology Review, March 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: The Need for Subtypes
Published in
Neuropsychology Review, March 2005
DOI 10.1007/s11065-005-3588-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonard A. Jason, Karina Corradi, Susan Torres-Harding, Renee R. Taylor, Caroline King

Abstract

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is an important condition confronting patients, clinicians, and researchers. This article provides information concerning the need for appropriate diagnosis of CFS subtypes. We first review findings suggesting that CFS is best conceptualized as a separate diagnostic entity rather than as part of a unitary model of functional somatic distress. Next, research involving the case definitions of CFS is reviewed. Findings suggest that whether a broad or more conservative case definition is employed, and whether clinic or community samples are recruited, these decisions will have a major influence in the types of patients selected. Review of further findings suggests that subtyping individuals with CFS on sociodemographic, functional disability, viral, immune, neuroendocrine, neurology, autonomic, and genetic biomarkers can provide clarification for researchers and clinicians who encounter CFS' characteristically confusing heterogeneous symptom profiles. Treatment studies that incorporate subtypes might be particularly helpful in better understanding the pathophysiology of CFS. This review suggests that there is a need for greater diagnostic clarity, and this might be accomplished by subgroups that integrate multiple variables including those in cognitive, emotional, and biological domains.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 19%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 23 26%
Unknown 8 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 28%
Psychology 21 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 12 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#4,819,472
of 25,381,864 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychology Review
#175
of 494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,431
of 75,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychology Review
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 75,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them