E3 PreliminaryModerate confidencePEM unclearMethods-PaperPeer-reviewedMachine draft
Reviewing the reviews: the example of chronic fatigue syndrome.
Joyce, J, Rabe-Hesketh, S, Wessely, S · JAMA · 1998 · DOI
Quick Summary
This study examined how researchers write review articles about ME/CFS and found that what gets included depends heavily on the author's background and where they're from. Scientists with laboratory training tend to focus on lab-based research, while psychiatrists tend to focus on psychiatric research. Authors also tend to cite papers from their own country much more often than papers from other countries.
Why It Matters
This study exposes a critical bias in how ME/CFS research is synthesized and presented to the field. If review articles—which shape clinical understanding and research priorities—systematically emphasize certain types of evidence based on author background rather than scientific merit, this could distort the direction of ME/CFS research and influence how patients are understood and treated.
Observed Findings
- Only 3.4% (3 of 89) CFS review articles reported their literature search strategy and methods.
- Authors from laboratory-based disciplines preferentially cited laboratory references, while psychiatry-based authors preferentially cited psychiatric literature (P=.01).
- 71.6% of references cited by US authors came from US journals, compared to 54.9% for UK authors citing UK journals (P=.001).
- Citation patterns were significantly influenced by both the departmental specialty and country of residence of the first author.
Inferred Conclusions
- Literature selection in CFS review articles is unsystematic and influenced by author discipline and nationality rather than by explicit methodological criteria.
- This selective citation practice may create disciplinary echo chambers where laboratory researchers mainly see laboratory evidence and psychiatrists mainly see psychiatric evidence.
- The lack of transparent search methodology in most reviews (96.6%) compounds these biases.
Remaining Questions
- What specific biases result from these citation patterns in terms of how ME/CFS etiology and treatment are portrayed across different medical specialties?
- Have citation bias patterns changed since 1996 with the advent of electronic databases and systematic review methodology?
What This Study Does Not Prove
This study does not prove that citation preferences are inappropriate or that authors are deliberately biased. It also does not establish that excluding certain literature types produces worse reviews, only that selection patterns are non-random. The findings describe association, not causation, and apply only to reviews published through March 1996.
Tags
EXPLORATORYPEM UNCLEAR
Metadata
- DOI
- 10.1001/jama.280.3.264
- PMID
- 9676676
- Review status
- Machine draft
- Evidence level
- Early hypothesis, preprint, editorial, or weak support
- Last updated
- 10 April 2026
About the PEM badge: “PEM required” means post-exertional malaise was an explicit required diagnostic criterion for participant inclusion in this study — not that PEM was studied, observed, or discussed. Studies using criteria that do not require PEM (e.g. Fukuda, Oxford) are tagged “PEM not required”. How the atlas works →
Spotted an error in this entry? Report it →