Lewith, G, Stuart, B, Chalder, T et al. · Journal of psychosomatic research · 2016 · DOI
This study looked at how many people with ME/CFS use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)—such as herbal supplements, acupuncture, or other non-standard treatments—and whether these helped their symptoms. Researchers found that 70% of study participants used some form of CAM at the start, but using CAM was not associated with meaningful improvements in fatigue or physical function over the course of the study.
This study provides evidence-based data on CAM prevalence in ME/CFS populations and whether these commonly-used treatments produce clinically meaningful benefits. Understanding which interventions do or do not help patients make better-informed decisions about their care and resource allocation.
This study does not prove that specific CAM treatments are ineffective for all ME/CFS patients; it only shows that in this trial sample, CAM use overall was not associated with clinically important improvements in the measured outcomes. The study is observational regarding CAM use and does not include randomized comparison of specific CAM interventions, so causation cannot be established. Results may not generalize to CAM use outside secondary care settings.
About the PEM badge: “PEM required” means post-exertional malaise was an explicit required diagnostic criterion for participant inclusion in this study — not that PEM was studied, observed, or discussed. Studies using criteria that do not require PEM (e.g. Fukuda, Oxford) are tagged “PEM not required”. How the atlas works →
Contribute
Private, reviewed by a human. Not a public comment thread.