2009
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-29
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Clinical assessment of the physical activity pattern of chronic fatigue syndrome patients: a validation of three methods

Abstract: Background: Effective treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) with cognitive behavioural

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
29
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar problems have been reported using the long form of IPAQ to assess PA in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome [39] and with short form of the IPAQ in healthy Swedish adults [40]. This may be due to the intrinsic difficulty that entails the assessment of PA by questionnaire [3].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…Similar problems have been reported using the long form of IPAQ to assess PA in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome [39] and with short form of the IPAQ in healthy Swedish adults [40]. This may be due to the intrinsic difficulty that entails the assessment of PA by questionnaire [3].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…The IPAQ–short is an internationally widely used instrument to measure physical activity. In The Netherlands, the validity in the general population31 33 and in chronic fatigue syndrome34 35 was found to be comparable with other self-reported measures of physical activity.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…For the accelerometer device (excluding pedometers), and for the fitness measures, several different units were used and were not consistent across studies. Of the seventeen studies using an accelerometer as the objective standard (8 in Table 2[18-20,29,31-33,39], 4 in Table 3[38,40,42,43], and 5 in both [23,25,34-36]), four types of units were commonly reported (with some studies reporting multiple different units). These included (i) raw accelerometry counts without transformation (Counts [17,25,29,31,33,35,36,40,43]), (ii) count data to energy expenditure (TEE/AEE/PAL [23,34,39]), (iii) MET scores (MET min/wk [19,25,31,32,36,38,40,42]), and (iv) time spent (Total PA min/wk [25,31,36,38-40,42,43]).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%