Systematic reviews have 2 aims. The first is to produce an unbiased,
detailed, and comprehensive synthesis of a particular subject. The second
is to permit the emergence of consensus, informing but not mandating clinicians
as to which interventions work for which patients. In this issue of THE JOURNAL,
Whiting and colleagues1 report a major systematic
qualitative review of the interventions used for treatment of chronic fatigue
syndrome (CFS). The results highlight the strengths of the systematic approach,
the weakness of the CFS evidence base, and the destructive ideological fault
lines that continue to divide the field, to the benefit of no one.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 1
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
Care at the Close of Life EDUCATION GUIDESPalliative Management of Fatigue at the Close of Life
All results at
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.