Kraemer M, Shoaib M (2021) Demystifying Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis - A Systematic Review. J Musculoskelet Disord Treat 7:090.

Original Article | OPEN ACCESS DOI: 10.23937/2572-3243.1510090

Demystifying Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis - A Systematic Review

Marius Kraemer1* and Muhammad Shoaib2

1University of Sydney, Camperdown NSW 2006, Australia

2Department of Internal Medicine, Combined Military Hospital, Peshawar 25000, Pakistan


Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a poorly understood disease and information on effective treatments is sparse. A vast variety of vague treatment regimens including self-treatment with over-the-counter painkillers and muscle relaxants with little definitive evidence in improving the course of disease has further augmented the complexity of management of CFS. The aim of this review article is to compare and contrast the efficacy of different treatment protocols currently in practice based on a four-category regimen system.

Methods: We performed a systematic search of 612 studies on PubMed and other sources and found 51 frequently prescribed medications for CFS. These treatments were classified into four categories I-IV (category I being the most effective therapies and category IV being the least).

Results: Out of 51 frequently prescribed medications for CFS, 3 (Omega 3 Fatty Acids, Nexavir, Amphotericin B) have demonstrated high response rates (50%+), high symptom remission (50%+) and high full remission rates (40%+).

Conclusion: Our understanding of CFS/ME is rapidly evolving. Numerous research discoveries have been made in the key aspects of CFS/ME, disease prevalence, etiology, biomarkers symptom manifestation, and treatment modalities. The four-category drug regimen outlined in our systematic review can be used as a starting point for future CFS/ME treatment and research.


Chronic fatigue syndrome, Treatment, Efficacy, Regimen


For nearly 100 years, [1] Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), also known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) has puzzled doctors and patients alike. Patients fell ill and became severely disabled with a wide range of diffuse symptoms and for seemingly no reason with no chance of recovery.

Due to the lack of understanding of CFS and its diffuse clinical picture, there was not much research funding for CFS/ME until recently and 80% of CFS/ME patients are still undiagnosed and have not received proper treatment [2].

Fortunately, numerous research advancements have been made, which are being collectively called as "A reboot for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome research" [3] and have enabled researchers to gain $35 million in additional funding for further research from 2018 to 2023 across 4 different research hubs in the U.S.

At this point, comprehensive, 700-pages long summaries on CFS with hundreds of proposed treatments exist [4-6]. However, a quantitative evaluation on the effectiveness of those treatments does not exist.

For that reason, this review aims to show a complete overview of the existing literature and to distill the wide complexity disease that is still very hard to understand into the most relevant points of the disease.


This review study was conducted on a medical research database (PubMed) by searching the keyword "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome [Title]" for studies published within a designated time period from January 1st 2015 to October 1st, 2020 with free full text articles available. The initial cohort of papers was screened using the inclusion criteria: (a) studies conducted in the aforementioned timeframe, (b) case reports, case series, observational studies, population-based studies, randomized control trials, meta-analysis related to the aforementioned keywords, and full-text studies in English language.

The PubMed search results returned 571 studies. An additional 41 studies from various other sources meeting the inclusion criteria regardless of publishing date were also considered. A total of 612 studies were screened of which 509 were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. After assessing the rest of 103 full-text articles for eligibility, 45 studies were further excluded due to duplicate findings and due to their lack of clinical relevance. A total of 58 studies were included in the final analysis. PRISMA guidelines were followed through the review process and figure 1 describes the data analysis process in detail (Figure 1).

Figure 1: PRISMA diagram for systematic analysis of PubMed articles on CFS and articles from other sources. View Figure 1


The prevalence of CFS/ME is significantly high, with an estimated 0.4% among the general population and 1% in children [7]. A large gender gap exists, similar to autoimmune diseases with middle-aged women comprising 70% of CFS patients; women are twice as likely to have CFS compared to men. CFS is found in people of all ages and races. A case as young as 4-years-old has been reported. Additionally, it is more common in adolescents than in children. Cases can occur in clusters or sporadically [8]. In children, a 2011 study found that among 465 of 2855 school children that were absent from school, 28 (1.0%) had CFS, diagnosed on the basis of Fukuda criteria. Upon follow up, out of the 19 children, 6 had fully recovered at 6 weeks and a further 6 at 6 months. A total of two-third of children recovered from CFS within 6 months [9]. Other studies from 2016 and 2018 confirmed the incidence of CFS with 0.9% among middle school children and with 2.4% among adolescents, respectively [10,11].

Due to the high prevalence and severe disability, CFS is estimated to cost the U.S. economy $17 to $24 billion annually in medical bills and lost incomes [12].

The incidence of the disease at the end of the 20th century was estimated at 2-7 cases per 100,000 population. At the the beginning of the 21st century, this number rose to 30-50 cases per 100,000 population. The reason for rise in incidence is twofold; an improvement in the awareness and diagnostic modalities, and an actual rise in the number of people suffering from CFS/ME [13].


Recent findings have identified various causes of CFS/ME, with the common denominator being heavy stress on the body and/or the immune system causing a wide range of mitochondrial dysfunction [14-21].

1. Viral infections, such as Influenza and herpes, infections caused by EBV, CMV, Varicella, HHV6, and HHV7

2. Bacterial infections, such as pneumonia

3. Blood transfusions

4. Physical injuries such as trauma and burn injuries

5. Yeast infections

6. Susceptible immune system

7. Hormonal imbalance

8. Mold exposure

9. Heavy metal exposure

10. Vaccinations

11. Mental health problems, e.g. mental illness, stress, and emotional trauma

12. Genetic predisposition - CFS/ME is more common in blood relations


There are around 50 symptoms that are commonly reported in CFS patients [22,23]. With 97.9% of patients experiencing post-exertional malaise, it is the most common symptom of CFS. Other common symptoms include the following, sorted from most commonly experienced to less commonly experienced:

1. Fatigue, often accompanied by non-restorative sleep, generally worsened by exertion (Post-exertional Malaise): 95-100%

2. Muscle weakness: 85-95%

3. Low blood pressure: 86%

4. Headache: 75-95% (daily headache: 50%)

5. Malaise: 80%

6. Cognitive symptoms including confusion, lightheadedness, inability to think clearly, concentration/attention deficit, depression, mood swings, excessive irritability, overreaction, memory problems (especially short-term memory), anxiety: 65%-100%

7. Muscle and/or joint pain, neck pain: 65-95%

8. Fevers/chills/sweats/hot flashes: 60-95%

9. Heat/cold intolerance: 75-80%

10. Aphasia and/or dyscalculia: 75-80%

11. Sleep disorder/disturbance (insomnia, non-restorative sleep, unusual nightmares): 65-100%

12. Photosensitivity: 65-90%

13. Disequilibrium, spatial disorientation, dizziness, vertigo: 60-90%

14. Nausea: 60-90%

15. Irritable bowel syndrome (diarrhea, nausea, gas, abdominal pain): 50-90%

16. Chronic sore throat: 50-90%

17. Recurrent illness and infections: 70-85%

18. Seizure-like episodes: 70% (seizures: 2%)

19. Fungal infection of skin and nails: 71%

20. Increased/severe PMS: 70%

21. Muscle twitching, involuntary movements: 55-80%

22. Personality change: 55-75%

23. Painful and/or swollen lymph nodes: 50-80%

24. Subnormal body temperature: 65%

25. Swelling, fluid retention: 55-70%

There are 28 more symptoms with an average 60% incidence or less recorded: Alcohol intolerance: 45-75%, coordination problems/clumsiness: 60%, weight gain: 50-70%, bladder/prostate problems, frequent urination: 20-95%, , shortness of breath: 30-70%, difficulty swallowing: 55-60%, sinus pain 56%, systemic yeast/fungal infections: 30-80%, heart palpitations: 40-60%, severe allergies: 40-60% cfs, sensitivities to medicines, inhalants, odors, and foods: 25-65% rash or flushing of face: 35-45%, visual disturbance (scratchiness, blurring of vision, "floaters"): 45-55%, episodic hyperventilation: 40-45%, fainting or blackouts: 40%, chest pain: 40%, panic attacks: 30-40%,, eye pain: 30%, pressure at the base of the skull: 30%, hair loss: 20-35%, weight loss: 20-30%, tendency to bruise easily: 25%, vomiting: 20%, paresthesia (numbness, tingling or other odd sensations in face and/or extremities): 25-60%, strange taste in mouth (bitter, metallic): 25%, temporary paralysis after sleeping: 20%, earache: 20%.

Since patients often experience many of these symptoms together, they are often severely disabled for many years due to the inability to perform routine physical activities, such as housekeeping or grocery shopping. This can lead to further complications such as unemployment (50%), social maladjustment, a lowered quality of life and side effects of drugs associated with long term use of painkillers [24].


Until recently, no biomarkers with reliable specificity had been identified for CFS/ME. However, in 2015, a study performed in Germany, found that 29% of CFS/ME patients have elevated autoantibodies to M3 and M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors [25]. In 2017, 17 cytokines were found to be associated with CFS severity. Furthermore, thirteen of these 17 cytokines are primarily pro-inflammatory: CCL11, CXCL1, CXCL10, IFN-γ, IL-4, IL-5, IL-7, IL-12, IL-13, IL-17, leptin, G-CSF, and GM-CSF. Interestingly, 11 of the 17 cytokines and 9 of the 13 pro-inflammatory cytokines share a similar structure, i.e., a four α-helical bundle structure. Their linear relationship with severity was statistically significant, though the study did not adequately distinguish cases from controls. This apparent paradox is explained by the levels of these cytokines in patients with mild disease being in the lower segment of the normal range for healthy controls and the levels in patients with severe disease being in the upper segment of the normal range for healthy controls [26]. Compared to controls, sustained increase in plasma TNF-α after exercise in CFS/ME patients compared to controls has been observed [27]. Moderate exercise has also been reported to induce a larger 48-hour post-exercise area under the curve for IL-10 [28].

In 2017, the first specific biomarker was reported to be Activin B [29]. In 2019, the second specific biomarker for CFS/ME via nano-electronic blood based analysis was revealed [30]. More research findings and treatments emerged over the last few years, with a further $35 million funding being committed to CFS research from 2018 to 2023 across 4 different research hubs in the U.S. The latest developments have been described as "A reboot for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome research" [3]. A multitude of non-specific biomarkers have been established along with 2 specific biomarkers for CFS/ME [31].


Since 60% of patients do not recover and the recovery in the other 40% of patients is slow, finding effective treatment is paramount [32]. More than 300 different pharmaceuticals and supplements have been considered and trialed by doctors for CFS, and the vast majority of these turned out to have little or no efficacy [4-6].

We evaluated the efficacy of 56 treatments for CFS for which data from trials existed in terms of demonstrated response rate, remission of some symptoms, complete remission of CFS, time to achieve complete remission, and strength of available evidence. Based on these five parameters, four categories (I-IV) of treatment regimen are proposed for devising a prompt and effective management plan. After thorough analysis, six were able to provide Category I efficacy, five Category II efficacy, six Category III efficacy, and 35 medications were included in the Category IV.

Levels of evidence were defined as per the Oxford Criteria for levels of evidence (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Oxford criteria of levels of evidence. View Figure 2

Category I treatment regimen:

The following criteria were adopted for the inclusion of drugs in Category I:

1. Overall response rate

2. Remission rate of CFS symptoms

3. % Responders with 100% remission

4. Time to achieve complete 100% remission/ some improvement

5. Level of evidence (Defined as per the Oxford Criteria fig 2)

There are no FDA approved medications for treatment. Due to the wide range of symptoms of CFS, symptomatic treatment approaches vary but we suggest using a set of criteria based on best practices and evidence-based medicine. The table below shows 5 medications that meet the inclusion criteria for Category I treatment (Table 1).

Table 1: Category I medications with response rate, remission, time to remission and level of evidence. View Table 1

Category II treatment regimen:

The following criteria were adopted for the inclusion of drugs in Category II:

1. More than 50% average response rate

2. More than 50% remission rates of CFS symptoms

3. No documentation on % responders with 100% remission

4. Time to achieve symptom improvement between 3 to 6 months

5. Level I or II evidence

Table 2 below shows 7 medications that meet the inclusion criteria for Category II treatment.

Table 2: Category II medications with response rate, remission, time to remission and level of evidence. View Table 2

Significant remission in symptoms is denoted in a 50% remission percentage. Furthermore, not all studies investigating the above treatments were conducted in a large-scale and double-blinded setting.

Category III treatment regimen:

The following criteria were adopted for the inclusion of drugs in Category III:

1. More than 50% response rate

2. Less than/Equal to 50% remission rate of CFS symptoms

3. No documentation of % responders with 100% remission

4. Time to improvement between 3 and 6 months

5. Level II evidence or higher

Table 3 shows 5 medications that meet the inclusion criteria for Category III treatment;

Table 3: Category III medications with response rate, remission, time to remission and level of evidence. View Table 3

Category IV treatment regimen:

The following criteria were adopted for the inclusion of drugs in Category IV:

1. No documentation of patient response rate

2. No documentation of remission rate of CFS symptoms

3. No documentation of % responders with 100% remission

4. No documentation of time to improvement between 3 and 6 months

5. Level IV or V evidence

A total of 31 supplements fall in this category. These include Sodium bicarbonate/baking soda, Ibudilast, Cordyceps Sinensis and Shiitake Mushroom, Oxytocin, Larorice, Biotin, Curcumin, Inosine, Epicor, Milk Thistle, Colostrum, NAC, Propionic Acid, Microbiotics, Hawthorns, L-Glutathione, Organic Germanium, Artesunate, IP-6, Spinola, Sulforaphane, L-Serine, Moringa Oleifera, Quercetin, NeuroProtek, CoEnzyme Q10 + NADH, St. John's, GcMAF, and Melatonin. Additionally, there are 6 pharmaceutical formulations (Naphazoline, Piracetam, Pentoxifylline, Azithromycin, Guaifenesin, Fludrocortisone) that fulfill the inclusion criteria for Category IV treatment regimen. However, the effectiveness of these supplements and pharmaceuticals has not been published or investigated in scientific studies and their evidence is hypothetical, informal, or based on expert opinion of medical professionals only.

Behavioral treatment or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has been widely used for CFS until recently. However, surveys from patient organizations have found considerable rates of harm from CBT in CFS patients [50,51]. Moreover, the two largest UK patient charities, ME Association and Action for ME, have called for the use of CBT to challenge "illness beliefs" to be withdrawn and for health care providers to warn patients of the potential for harm [52]. What's more, the largest independent patient survey of patient experiences of CBT and GET in the UK found that ME/CFS patients were almost double as likely to have their mental health deteriorate than improve as a result of the course and see new symptoms develop and a negative effect on their physical health [53].


Recovery from CFS is more common than assumed with 40% of CFS patients reporting symptom improvement after several years [54,55].

Longitudinal studies have shown that 17-64% of CFS patients with longer than 6 months of illness improved, less than 10% fully recovered, and another 10-20% worsens during follow-up. Older age, longer duration of symptoms, severity, comorbid psychiatric illness, and poor physical health status are additional factors that worsen the prognosis. Children and adolescents appear to recover more rapidly and have a low incidence of recurrence [56].

Recovery of CFS with long term follow-up of 784 pediatric CFS patients was demonstrated in a study performed in Australia. 35% of patients recovered at 5 years and 68% at 10 years post diagnosis, with 5% remaining very unwell and 20% significantly unwell. However, the study failed to identify predictors for recovery [57].

A review of 14 studies found that on average 5% of patients recovered (range 0%-31%); 40% of patients improved during follow-up (range 8%-63%); 8%-30% returned to work; 5%-20% of patients reported worsening of symptoms. Furthermore, prompt diagnosis and early treatment significantly raises the rate and pace of recovery [54,58].


CFS/ME is not a mysterious disease anymore, but a disease with known prevalence (0.4%-1%), etiology (12 different causes), biomarkers (2 specific and 17 unspecific), symptom manifestation (50) confirmed by multiple studies. The evidence suggests the 10 different agents as the most effective treatments for CFS.

Furthermore, the evidence suggests the following 10 different agents as the most effective treatments for CFS.

Category I treatment options with the highest response rates (50%+), high levels of evidence and highest full remissions rates:

1. Omega-3 Fatty acids

2. Nexavir

3. Amphotericin B

Category II treatment options with the high response rates (50%+) and high levels of evidence, but no documented full remission rates were:

1. Magnesium injections

2. Vitamin B12

3. Thymic protein A

4. Equilibrant

5. Heparin injections

6. Acetyl-L-Carnitine

7. Amino Acid Complex


There are certain limitations to this review. Around 40% of CFS patients experience recovery over several years regardless of treatment. Thus, 40% of patients receiving the above treatments will see slight improvement regardless. However, most of the above studies were conducted over the time span of a few weeks to 6 months, which should alleviate this limitation.

Moreover, most of the above studies were not independent studies with committee oversight, which can also skew data.

As well, due to the complex nature of CFS, it has varying presentations and a general heterogeneity in etiology. Owing to this, some treatments that might work well for a specific group of CFS patients might not work well for others.

For that reason, future research is required to define the exact classification of subtypes while diagnosing CFS patients for future trials. This is not important only for trials that investigate the effectiveness of treatment, but also for all other medical trials investigating the underlying mechanisms of CFS/ME.

With the number of studies with the title "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" from 13 studies published on PubMed in the year 2000 study to 121 studies published in 2019, having increased by nine times and significant amounts of newly committed funding, the outlook for future research and better treatments also looks promising.


Research in CFS/ME treatment has come a long way. Yet, there is no standard scientifically demonstrated evidence-based intervention in practice. This overview has compared the frequently prescribed medications for CFS from available research studies and classified them into four categories in terms of clinical effectiveness.

The evidence suggests that Category III treatments only provide symptomatic relief and can only reduce cognitive symptoms as a consequence while Category I and Category II treatments are causal treatments and are thus able to reduce all symptoms.

With this analysis, CFS patients are now able to make use of a treatment regimen based on the available evidence, which suggests that potentially several million CFS patients could achieve full recovery with the Category I treatments.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Parish JG (1978) Early outbreaks of ‘epidemic neuromyasthenia’. Postgrad Med J 54: 711-717.
  2. Bested AC, Marshall LM (2015) Review of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: An evidence-based approach to diagnosis and management by clinicians. Rev Environ Health 30: 223-249.
  3. Maxmen A (2018) A reboot for chronic fatigue syndrome research. Nature 553: 14-17.
  4. Stordeur S, Thiry N, Eyssen M (2008) Chronic fatigue syndrome: Diagnosis, treatment and care organization. KCE reports 88S.
  5. Chronic fatigue syndrome - A roadmap for testing and treatment.
  6. Kim DY, Lee JS, Park SY, Kim SJ, Son CG (2020) Systematic review of randomized controlled trials for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). Journal of Translational Medicine 18: 1-2.
  7. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK) (2007) Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy): Diagnosis and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy) in adults and children. Royal College of General Practitioners, London, UK.
  8. Levine PH (1994) Epidemic neuromyasthenia and chronic fatigue syndrome: Epidemiological importance of a cluster definition. Clin Infect Dis 18: S16-S20.
  9. Crawley EM, Emond AM, Sterne JAC (2011) Unidentified chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a major cause of school absence: Surveillance outcomes from school-based clinics. BMJ Open 1: e000252.
  10. Shi J, Shen J, Xie J, Zhi J, Xu Y (2018) Chronic fatigue syndrome in Chinese middle-school students. Medicine (Baltimore) 97: e9716.
  11. Norris T, Deere K, Tobias JH, Crawley E (2017) Chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic widespread pain in adolescence: Population birth cohort study. J Pain 18: 285-294.
  12. Jason LA, Benton MC, Valentine L, Johnson A, Torres-Harding S (2008) The economic impact of ME/CFS: Individual and societal costs. Dyn Med 7: 6.
  13. Fernández AA, Martín ÁP, Martínez MI, Bustillo MA, Hernández FJB, et al. (2009) Chronic fatigue syndrome: Aetiology, diagnosis and treatment. BMC Psychiatry 9: S1.
  14. Missailidis D, Annesley SJ, Fisher PR (2019) Pathological mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Diagnostics (Basel) 9: 80.
  15. Myhill S, Booth NE, McLaren-Howard J (2013) Targeting mitochondrial dysfunction in the treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS)- a clinical audit. Int J Clin Exp Med 6: 1-15.
  16. Myhill S, Booth NE, McLaren-Howard J (2009) Chronic fatigue syndrome and mitochondrial dysfunction. Int J Clin Exp Med 2: 1-16.
  17. Bland JS (2017) Chronic fatigue syndrome, functional mitochondriopathy, and enterohepatic dysfunction. Integr Med (Encinitas) 16: 18-21.
  18. Booth NE, Myhill S, McLaren-Howard J (2012) Mitochondrial dysfunction and the pathophysiology of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Int J Clin Exp Med 5: 208-220.
  19. Rutherford G, Manning P, Newton JL (2016) Understanding muscle dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome. J Aging Res 2016: 2497348.
  20. Vallings R (2013) Chronic fatigue syndrome/M.E. Calico Publishing Ltd.
  21. Crawley E, Smith GD (2007) Is chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME) heritable in children, and if so, why does it matter? Arch Dis Child 92: 1058-1061.
  22. Collin SM, Nuevo R, Van De Putte EM, Nijhof SL, Crawley E (2015) Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is different in children compared to in adults: A study of UK and Dutch clinical cohorts. BMJ Open 5: e008830.
  23. Verrillo E, Gellman L (1998) Chronic fatigue syndrome. St. Martin's Griffin, New York.
  24. Collin SM, Crawley E, May MT, Sterne JAC, Hollingworth W (2011) The impact of CFS/ME on employment and productivity in the UK: A cross-sectional study based on the CFS/ME national outcomes database. BMC Health Serv Res 11: 217.
  25. Loebel M, Grabowski P, Heidecke H, Bauer S, Hanitsch LG, et al. (2016) Antibodies to β adrenergic and muscarinic cholinergic receptors in patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Brain Behav Immun 52: 32-39.
  26. Montoya JG, Holmes TH, Anderson JN, Maecker HT, Rosenberg-Hasson Y, et al. (2017) Cytokine signature associated with disease severity in chronic fatigue syndrome patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114: E7150-E7158.
  27. White PD, Nye KE, Pinching AJ, Yap TM, Power N, et al. (2004) Immunological changes after both exercise and activity in chronic fatigue syndrome: A pilot study. Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 12: 51-66.
  28. Light AR, Bateman L, Jo D, Hughen RW, Vanhaitsma TA, et al. (2012) Gene expression alterations at baseline and following moderate exercise in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia syndrome. J Intern Med 271: 64-81.
  29. Lidbury BA, Kita B, Lewis DP, Hayward S, Ludlow H, et al. (2017) Activin B is a novel biomarker for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) diagnosis: A cross sectional study. J Transl Med 15: 60.
  30. Esfandyarpour R, Kashi A, Nemat-Gorgani M, Wilhelmy J, Davis RW (2019) A nanoelectronics-blood-based diagnostic biomarker for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116: 10250-10257.
  31. Missailidis D, Sanislav O, Allan CY, Annesley SJ, Fisher PR (2020) Cell-based blood biomarkers for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Int J Mol Sci 21: 1142.
  32. Devendorf AR, Jackson CT, Sunnquist M, Jason LA (2019) Defining and measuring recovery from myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: The physician perspective. Disabil Rehabil 41: 158-165.
  33. Gray JB, Martinovic AM (1994) Eicosanoids and essential fatty acid modulation in chronic disease and the chronic fatigue syndrome. Med Hypotheses 43: 31-42.
  34. Puri BK (2004) The use of eicosapentaenoic acid in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 70: 399-401.
  35. Steinbach T, Hermann W, Lawyer C, Montefiore D, Wagle S, et al. (1994) Subjective reduction in symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome following long-term treatment with a porcine liver extract: A phase 1 trial. Clinical Infectious Diseases 18: S114.
  36. Brewer JH, Hooper D, Muralidhar S (2015) Intranasal antifungal therapy in patients with chronic illness associated with mold and mycotoxins: An observational analysis. Global Journal of Medical Research 15: 29-33.
  37. IM Cox, MJ Campbell, D Dowson (1991) Red blood cell magnesium and chronic fatigue syndrome. Lancet 337: 757-760.
  38. Van Campen C Linda Mc, Riepma Klass, Visser Frans C (2019) Open trial of vitamin b12 nasal drops in adults with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: Comparison of responders and non-responders. Front Pharmacol 10: 1102.
  39. Rosenbaum ME, Vojdani A, Susser M, Watson CM (2001) Improved immune activation markers in chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome (CFIDS) patients treated with thymic protein A. Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine 11: 241-247.
  40. Berg D, Berg LH, Couvaras J (1998) Is CFS/FMS due to an undefined hypercoagulable state brought on by immune activation of coagulation? Does adding anticoagulant therapy improve CFS/FMS Patient symptoms? American Association Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
  41. Vermeulen RC, Scholte HR (2004) Exploratory open label, randomized study of acetyl-and propionylcarnitine in chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychosom Med 66: 276-282.
  42. Dr John Chia (2015) “Oxymatrine Treatment for ME/CFS”, Invest in ME Conference, London 2010: I start to relapse every time I come off equilibrant. Phoenix Rising ME/CFS Forums.
  43. Bralley JA, Lord RS (1994) Treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome with specific amino acid supplementation. Journal of Applied Nutrition 46: 74-78.
  44. Dunstan RH, Sparkes DL, Roberts TK, Crompton MJ, Gottfries J, et al. (2013) Development of a complex amino acid supplement, Fatigue Reviva™, for oral ingestion: Initial evaluations of product concept and impact on symptoms of sub-health in a group of males. Nutr J 12: 115.
  45. Parker S (2014) Nimodipine use in M.E./CFS: A comprehensive guide.
  46. Mitchell WM (2016) Efficacy of rintatolimod in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 9: 755-770.
  47. Olson LG, Ambrogetti A, Sutherland DC (2003) A pilot randomized controlled trial of dexamphetamine in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychosomatics 44: 38-43.
  48. Diaz-Mitoma F, Turgonyi E, Kumar A, Lim W, Larocque L, et al. (2003) Clinical improvement in chronic fatigue syndrome is associated with enhanced natural killer cell-mediated cytotoxicity: The results of a pilot study with Isoprinosine®. Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 11: 71-95.
  49. Teitelbaum JE, Johnson C, Cyr JS (2006) The use of D-ribose in chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia: A pilot study. J Altern Complement Med 12: 857-862.
  50. Speedy Maik (2015) Treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Ann Intern Med 163: 884-885.
  51. Kindlon T (2011) Reporting of harms associated with graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Bulletin of the IACFS/ME 19: 59-111.
  52. The ME Association (2015) ME/CFS Illness Management Survey Results “No decisions about me without me”.
  53. Oxford Clinical Allied Technology and Trials Services Unit (OxCATTS) (2019) Evaluation of a survey exploring the experiences of adults and children with ME/CFS who have participated in CBT and GET interventional programmes.
  54. Cairns R, Hotopf M (2005) A systematic review describing the prognosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. Occup Med (Lond) 55: 20-31.
  55. Joyce J, Hotopf M, Wessely S (1997) The prognosis of chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome: A systematic review. QJM 90: 223-233.
  56. Vercoulen JH, Swanink CM, Fennis JF, Galama JM, Van der Meer JW, et al. (1996) Prognosis in chronic fatigue syndrome: A prospective study on the natural course. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 60: 489-494.
  57. Knight S, Elders S, Rodda J, Harvey A, Lubitz L, et al. (2019) Epidemiology of paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome in Australia. Arch Dis Child 104: 733-738.
  58. IACFS/ME (2014) 11th Biennial International Conference - Translating science into clinical care.


Kraemer M, Shoaib M (2021) Demystifying Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis - A Systematic Review. J Musculoskelet Disord Treat 7:090.