RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A Scoping Review of ‘Pacing’ for Management of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): Lessons Learned for the Long COVID Pandemic
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.08.10.23293935
DO 10.1101/2023.08.10.23293935
A1 Sanal-Hayes, Nilihan E.M.
A1 Mclaughlin, Marie
A1 Hayes, Lawrence D.
A1 Mair, Jacqueline L.
A1 Ormerod, Jane
A1 Carless, David
A1 Hilliard, Natalie
A1 Meach, Rachel
A1 Ingram, Joanne
A1 Sculthorpe, Nicholas F.
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/15/2023.08.10.23293935.abstract
AB Background Controversy over treatment for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a barrier to appropriate treatment. Energy management or pacing is a prominent coping strategy for people with ME/CFS that involves regulating activity to avoid post exertional malaise (PEM), the worsening of symptoms after an activity. Until now, characteristics of pacing, and the effects on patients’ symptoms had not been systematically reviewed. This is problematic as the most common approach to pacing, pacing prescription, and the pooled efficacy of pacing was unknown. Collating evidence may help advise those suffering with similar symptoms, including long COVID, as practitioners would be better informed on methodological approaches to adopt, pacing implementation, and expected outcomes.Objectives In this scoping review of the literature, we aggregated type of, and outcomes of, pacing in people with ME/CFS.Eligibility criteria Original investigations concerning pacing were considered in participants with ME/CFS.Sources of evidence Six electronic databases (PubMed, Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) were searched; and websites MEPedia, Action for ME, and ME Action were also searched for grey literature.Methods A scoping review was conducted. Review selection and characterisation was performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms.Results Authors reviewed 177 titles and abstracts, resulting in included 17 studies: three randomised control trials (RCTs); one uncontrolled trial; one interventional case series; one retrospective observational study; two prospective observational studies; four cross-sectional observational studies; and five cross-sectional analytical studies. Studies included variable designs, durations, and outcome measures. In terms of pacing administration, studies used educational sessions and diaries for activity monitoring. Eleven studies reported benefits of pacing, four studies reported no effect, and two studies reported a detrimental effect in comparison to the control group.Conclusions Highly variable study designs and outcome measures, allied to poor to fair methodological quality resulted in heterogenous findings and highlights the requirement for more research examining pacing. Looking to the long COVID pandemic, future studies should be RCTs utilising objectively quantified digitised pacing, over a longer duration of examination, using the core outcome set for patient reported outcome measures.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (COV-LT2-0010) and the funder had no role in the conceptualisation, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript