Comparing and contrasting consensus versus empirical domains
Comparing and contrasting consensus versus empirical domains
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/21641846.2015.1017344
复制
发表时间：
2015-01-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Vernon, Suzanne D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jason, Leonard A.;Kot, Bobby;Vernon, Suzanne D.
背景资料：自CFS病例定义发表以来，已经提出了许多其他标准，包括加拿大共识标准和肌痛性脑脊髓炎：国际共识标准。目的：目前的研究比较了这些领域，通过共识的方法，通过更实证的方法，使用因子分析获得。方法：使用数据挖掘，我们比较和对比的基本特征的共识为基础的标准与经验的潜在因素。一般来说，这些方法发现疲劳/运动后不适领域是最好的区分患者和对照组的领域。结果：研究结果表明，Fukuda等标准的敏感性和特异性最差。结论：这些结果可能有助于理论家和研究人员更好地确定哪些基本域用于案例定义。
Background: Since the publication of the CFS case definition, there have been a number of other criteria proposed including the Canadian Consensus Criteria and the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. Purpose: The current study compared these domains that were developed through consensus methods to one obtained through more empirical approaches using factor analysis. Methods: Using data mining, we compared and contrasted fundamental features of consensus-based criteria versus empirical latent factors. In general, these approaches found the domain of fatigue/post-exertional malaise as best differentiating patients from controls. Results: Findings indicated that the Fukuda et al. criteria had the worst sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions: These outcomes might help both theorists and researchers better determine which fundamental domains to be used for the case definition.