E3 PreliminaryPreliminaryPEM unclearReview-NarrativePeer-reviewedMachine draft
Neurasthenia, myalgic encephalitis or cryptogenic chronic fatigue syndrome?
Leitch, A G · QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians · 1995
Quick Summary
This 1995 paper explores the history and naming of ME/CFS, comparing three different terms used to describe the condition: neurasthenia (an older term), myalgic encephalitis, and chronic fatigue syndrome. The author examines how the same illness has been called different names over time and in different places, which can create confusion about what the condition actually is.
Why It Matters
This paper is important because terminology directly affects how patients are diagnosed, treated, and studied. By clarifying the history and distinctions between different names for ME/CFS, this work helps both patients and clinicians understand why there has been so much confusion and disagreement about the condition's identity and legitimacy.
Observed Findings
- - Multiple terminologies (neurasthenia, myalgic encephalitis, chronic fatigue syndrome) have been applied to overlapping illness presentations across different time periods and geographic regions
- - Historical naming conventions have created semantic confusion in medical literature and clinical practice
- - Different terms emphasize different aspects (neurological, muscular, fatigue-focused) of the same underlying condition
Inferred Conclusions
- - Clear, standardized terminology is needed to improve clinical recognition and enable consistent research across different populations
- - The history of naming reflects deeper disagreements about the condition's pathophysiology and legitimacy
- - Understanding historical context is essential for resolving modern diagnostic controversies
Remaining Questions
- - What diagnostic criteria should definitively distinguish ME/CFS from other conditions?
- - How can international agreement on terminology be achieved to facilitate global research cooperation?
- - What are the biological mechanisms underlying the condition that any name should accurately reflect?
What This Study Does Not Prove
This paper does not provide new scientific evidence about the biological mechanisms, causes, or treatments of ME/CFS. It does not prove which name is most appropriate or establish diagnostic criteria. As a historical review rather than an empirical study, it cannot definitively resolve debates about disease classification.
Tags
Symptom:Fatigue
Method Flag:PEM Not DefinedWeak Case Definition
Metadata
- PMID
- 7648237
- 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 →