Nix, W A · Der Nervenarzt · 1990
This editorial from 1990 discusses that ME/CFS was becoming more commonly diagnosed at that time, but doctors weren't sure if it was one distinct disease or simply a label given to many different conditions. The author notes that we still need to understand whether ME/CFS has a physical cause, a psychological cause, or both, and that each patient may need individual evaluation.
This commentary reflects a pivotal moment in ME/CFS history when the medical community was grappling with fundamental questions about disease definition and etiology. It highlights the long-standing uncertainty about whether ME/CFS is a unified biological disease or a diagnostic label, a debate that remains relevant to current research efforts and patient care approaches.
This editorial does not present empirical data or evidence proving whether ME/CFS is organic or psychosomatic. It does not establish the cause or causes of ME/CFS, nor does it demonstrate whether increased diagnostic frequency reflects true disease prevalence or simply greater clinical awareness. As an opinion piece, it represents expert commentary rather than definitive scientific findings.
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.