Uchida, A · Nihon rinsho. Japanese journal of clinical medicine · 1992
This review examined different treatment options for ME/CFS by looking at past clinical studies. Researchers found that while most treatments tested didn't work well, a few showed promise—including intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, magnesium supplements, and treatments designed to boost natural killer cells (immune cells that help fight infection). The authors suggest that immune system problems may play a role in ME/CFS, and fixing these problems might help patients feel better.
This early review helped establish that ME/CFS is not primarily a viral infection responsive to antivirals, shifting focus toward immune dysregulation as a treatment target. Understanding which therapies showed preliminary promise has informed subsequent decades of research into immune-based interventions and biomarkers in ME/CFS.
This review does not establish efficacy of any treatment through rigorous evidence—it synthesizes earlier trials with varying methodological quality and small sample sizes. The finding that some treatments showed promise does not prove they are effective for most patients, and the proposed immune mechanism remains a hypothesis rather than proven cause. Published in 1992, it reflects only research available at that time and cannot account for subsequent clinical trial evidence.
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 →