ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2024
[What Medical Specialties do ME/CFS Sufferers Consult? A Public Health Study on the need for Better Medical Education and Training].
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe disease ME/CFS is unknown to many doctors in Germany. Within the healthcare system, significant deficits in dealing with ME/CFS patients have been repeatedly revealed. Hence, the aim of the present study was to identify the specialties of the doctors consulted by ME/CFS patients and to find out whether information on the medical procedure in the context of the diagnosis process can be derived from this.
methodAs part of the APAV-ME/CFS survey, the quantitative responses of 674 adult ME/CFS sufferers (>20 y.; 554 ♀, 120 ♂) who already had a medical ME/CFS diagnosis were statistically examined. The sampling was done by self-activation and via the snowball principle. The data were primarily evaluated descriptively. An analysis of variance was carried out to consider possible relationships.
resultsAlmost a quarter of the patients said they had suffered from ME/CFS for 6 to 10 years. Diagnosis was made within 10 years of disease onset in 62%. For 6.4% it took 21-40 years. 75% of the participants consulted 6 to 15 different doctors from a wide range of disciplines in the course of the disease, in particular from general medicine, neurology, internal medicine and psychosomatics/psychiatry. Diagnosis was made in particular by GPs and immunologists. On average, the test persons named 11 mostly neuroregulatory symptoms.
conclusionsThe results suggest that in the context of finding a diagnosis in Germany for ME/CFS, referral behaviour to specialists based on single ME/CFS symptoms or rather arbitrary contacting of doctors from a wide variety of disciplines has prevailed so far. Therefore, training and further education measures on the subject of ME/CFS are urgently needed in all specialist disciplines in the resident, inpatient and rehabilitation sectors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.