Q J Med 2004; 97: 379-380
QJM vol. 97 no. 6 © Association of Physicians 2004; all rights reserved.
Correspondence |
Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome
Sir,I read Severens et al.'s article on the cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with unexplained chronic fatigue1 with interest, although as several subjects met the CDC criteria for ‘idiopathic chronic fatigue’ rather than ‘chronic fatigue syndrome’,2,3 I prefer to use the term ‘unexplained chronic fatigue’ as defined by Fukuda et al.3 to describe the patient sample under consideration.
To be able to regard the presented cost estimates as a valid reflection of the medical costs of patients with unexplained chronic fatigue, it is imperative to demonstrate that there are no differences between participants who are included in the analysis and participants who are excluded from the analysis.
According to the authors: ‘An extensive comparison between participants in the cost-effectiveness analyse (n = 171) and the remaining clinical study participants (n = 99) did not reveal any statistically significant differences regarding age, duration of CFS complaints, and scores for Sickness Impact Profile, Karnofsky score, physical activity, a self-efficacy scale, a causal attribution list, and functional impairment.’ (pp. 158–9).
Although details are lacking in the article, baseline data of the included and excluded participants are available from a publication of the Health Care Insurance Board of the Netherlands (College voor zorgverzekeringen).4 Comparing baseline variables of the two groups using two-tailed independent sample t-tests yields the results that are presented in Table 1. The table shows that physical activity (measured by a motion-sensing device called the actometer), self-efficacy, and psychological well-being (measured by the symptom checklist 90) are significantly different at the 0.05 level. The p values for physical activity (p = 0.0081) and self-efficacy (p = 0.0046) are particularly small. As the authors did not correct for multiple comparisons when analysing the primary outcome measures in the clinical part of the study,5 I did not apply such a correction here either.
|
Because the authors' statement that there are no statistically significant differences is in contradiction with the two-tailed independent sample t-test results discussed above, it would greatly enhance the reproducibility and external validity of the study if the authors could provide the reader with information on the methods used to compare the included and excluded participants.
Violierstraat 27 5402 LA Uden The Netherlands
References
1. Severens JL, Prins JB, Van der Wilt GJ, Van der Meer JWM, Bleijenberg G. Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Q J Med 2004; 97:153–61.
2. Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, Sharpe MC, Dobbins JG, Komaroff A, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. Ann Intern Med 1994; 121:953–9.
3. Prins JB, Bleijenberg G, De Boo TM, Van der Meer JWM. Cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome [Letter]. Lancet 2001; 358:240–1.[Web of Science][Medline]
4. Van Essen M, De Winter LJM. Cognitieve gedragstherapie bij het chronisch vermoeidheidssyndroom. Nr 02/111. Amstelveen, College voor zorgverzekeringen (in Dutch), 2002. Appendix 1, Table 8, p. 24.
5. Prins JB, Bleijenberg G, Bazelmans E, Elving LD, De Boo TM, Severens JL, et al. Cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2001; 357:841–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||