Repeated maximal exercise tests of peak oxygen consumption in people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

References

• Evering RMH, Van Weering MGH, Groothuis-Oudshoorn KCGM, et al. Daily physical activity of patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2011;25:112–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carruthers BM, Jain AK, De Meirleir KL, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: clinical working case definition. Diagnostic and treatment protocols. J Chronic Fatigue Syndr. 2003;11:7–115.
   Google Scholar
• Jason L. The energy envelope theory and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. AAOHN J. 2008.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Collin SM, Crawley E, May MT, et al. 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. 2011;11(217). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-217.
   Google Scholar
• Collin SM, Nikolaus S, Heron J, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) symptom-based phenotypes in two clinical cohorts of adult patients in the UK and The Netherlands. J Psychosom Res. 2016;81:14–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu L, Valencia IJ, Garvert DW, et al. Deconstructing post-exertional malaise in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: A patient-centered, cross-sectional survey. PLoS One. 2018;13(6): e0197811, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermeulen RCW, Kurk RM, Visser FC, et al. Patients with chronic fatigue syndrome performed worse than controls in a controlled repeated exercise study despite a normal oxidative phosphorylation capacity. J Transl Med. 2010;8(93). https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-8-93.
   Google Scholar
• Vanness JM, Snell CR, Stevens SR. Diminished cardiopulmonary capacity during post-exertional malaise. J Chronic Fatigue Syndr. 2007;14:77–85.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin JD, Atkinson G, Atkinson JM, et al. Peak oxygen uptake in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: A meta-analysis. Int J Sports Med. 2019;40:77–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komaroff AL. Advances in understanding the pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome. JAMA. 2019;322:499–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davenport TE, Stevens SR, Stevens J, et al. Properties of measurements obtained during cardiopulmonary exercise testing in individuals with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Work. 2020;66:247–256.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snell CR, Stevens SR, Davenport TE, et al. Discriminative validity of metabolic and workload measurements for identifying people with chronic fatigue syndrome. Phys Ther. 2013;93:1484–1492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson MJ, Buckley JD, Thomson RL, et al. Diagnostic sensitivity of 2-day cardiopulmonary exercise testing in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. J Transl Med. 2019;17:1–8. DOI:10.1186/s12967-019-1836-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodges LD, Nielson T, Baken D. Physiological measures in participants with chronic fatigue syndrome: multiple sclerosis and healthy controls following repeated exercise: a pilot study. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2018;37:639–644. DOI:10.1111/cpf.12460
   Google Scholar
• Lim EJ, Kang EB, Jang ES, et al. The prospects of the two-day cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) in ME/CFS patients: A meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2020;9:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inthout J, Ioannidis JPA, Rovers MM, et al. Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6, Available from: http://www.r-project.org/
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J. 2021;372.
   Google Scholar
• Carruthers BM, Van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: international consensus criteria. J Intern Med. 2011;270:327–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:953–959.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes GP, Kaplan JE, Gantz NM, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a working case definition. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:387–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross LE, Grigoriadis S, Mamisashvili L, et al. Quality assessment of observational studies in psychiatry: an example from perinatal psychiatric research. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2011;20:224–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Li T, Deeks JJ. Chapter 6: choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane. 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
   Google Scholar
• Lien K, Johansen B, Veierød MB, et al. Abnormal blood lactate accumulation during repeated exercise testing in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Physiol Rep. 2019;7:e14138. DOI:10.14814/phy2.14138
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Digitizelt. Digitizer software. [Accessed 2021 Jul]. Available from: http://www.digitizeit.de/
   Google Scholar
• Jackson D, Law M, Rücker G, et al. The Hartung-Knapp modification for random-effects meta-analysis: A useful refinement but are there any residual concerns? Stat Med. 2017;36:3923–3934.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inthout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(25). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-25.
   Google Scholar
• Röver C, Knapp G, Friede T. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman approach and its modification for random-effects meta-analysis with few studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15(99). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0091-1.
   Google Scholar
• Vacha-Haase T, Thompson B. How to estimate and interpret various effect sizes. J Couns Psychol. 2004;51:473–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins G. Individual responses made easy. J Appl Physiol. 2015;118:1444–1446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farivar SS, Liu H, Hays RD. Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcome Res. 2004;4:515–523.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mathur MB, VanderWeele TJ. New metrics for meta-analyses of heterogeneous effects. Stat Med. 2018: 1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomas C, Elson JL. The role of mitochondria in ME/CFS: a perspective. Fatigue Biomed Heal Behav. 2019;7:52–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin-Rincon M, González-Henríquez JJ, Losa-Reyna J, et al. Impact of data averaging strategies on V̇O2max assessment: mathematical modeling and reliability. Scand J Med Sci Sport. 2019;29:1473–1488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robergs RA, Dwyer D, Astorino T. Recommendations for improved data processing from expired gas analysis indirect calorimetry. Sport Med. 2010;40:95–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNulty CR, Robergs RA. Repeat trial and breath averaging: recommendations for research of VO2 kinetics of exercise transitions to steady-state. Mov Sport Sci - Sci Mot. 2019;106:37–44.
   Google Scholar
• McLaren SJ, Graham M, Spears IR, et al. The sensitivity of differential ratings of perceived exertion as measures of internal load. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016;11:404–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midgley AW, McNaughton LR, Polman R, et al. Criteria for determination of maximal oxygen uptake: A brief critique and recommendations for future research. Sport Med. 2007;37:1019–1028.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole DC, Jones AM. Measurement of the maximum oxygen uptake Vo2max: Vo2peak is no longer acceptable. J Appl Physiol. 2017;122:997–1002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar