Read on Twitter
1) Interesting review of neuroimaging studies on ME/CFS.
The Australian authors looked at all papers from 1988 to 2018 and found 63 relevant studies.
I’ll try to highlight their main findings in the thread below (haven't read all 63 studies though). …https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-020-02506-6
The Australian authors looked at all papers from 1988 to 2018 and found 63 relevant studies.
I’ll try to highlight their main findings in the thread below (haven't read all 63 studies though). …https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-020-02506-6
2) First, the review notes that ME/CFS is an under-recognized disease because the selected studies were small and rather unimpressive. The sample size of the smaller group (patients or controls) in 40 out of the 63 articles were equal to or smaller than 16.
3) Another problem: more than 80% of reviewed studies did not control for lifestyle differences. That’s a problem because physical activity levels can impact brain structures and functions.
4)The authors write “that there is a pressing need to establish a collaborative neuroimaging databank for ME/CFS”. That would allow for bigger and better controlled studies. They also propose objective measurements of physical activity in both patients and controls.
5) The most consistent finding was the following: 10/12 articles reported that ME/CFS patients either recruited additional brain regions or had a greater blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) signal changes than controls for cognitive tasks where they had the same performance.
6) the authors also highlight abnormalities in the brainstem (caveat: most of these studies come from their own research group). Three studies reported hypoperfusion in the brain stem, however, two other studies didn’t.
7) Several studies reported abnormalities in cerebral blood flow (CBF) in ME/CFS patients compared to controls.
This review indicates however that overall, the findings have been inconsistent. 8 reported decreased global or regional CBF in ME/CFS, 6 couldn’t find differences.
This review indicates however that overall, the findings have been inconsistent. 8 reported decreased global or regional CBF in ME/CFS, 6 couldn’t find differences.
8) Other findings haven’t been replicated by multiple research groups or have shown inconsistent findings.
I think there is a strong argument for more and better neuroimaging studies in ME/CFS.
Discussion on S4ME: https://www.s4me.info/threads/neuroimaging-characteristics-of-me-cfs-a-systematic-review-shan-et-al-2020.16633/
I think there is a strong argument for more and better neuroimaging studies in ME/CFS.
Discussion on S4ME: https://www.s4me.info/threads/neuroimaging-characteristics-of-me-cfs-a-systematic-review-shan-et-al-2020.16633/
