Cited by 52Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchLong-Term Effects of COVID-19Traumatic Brain Injury Research

Randomised Controlled Trial of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Delivered in Groups of Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Wiborg, Jan F., van Bussel, Jose, van Dijk, Agaat, Bleijenberg, Gijs, Knoop, Hans·2015·Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics

Abstract

Background: Meta-analyses have been inconclusive about the efficacy of cognitive behaviour therapies (CBTs) delivered in groups of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) due to a lack of adequate studies. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with 204 adult CFS patients from our routine clinical practice who were willing to receive group therapy. Patients were equally allocated to therapy groups of 8 patients and 2 therapists, 4 patients and 1 therapist or a waiting list control condition. Primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle and compared the intervention group (n = 136) with the waiting list condition (n = 68). The study was open label. Results: Thirty-four (17%) patients were lost to follow-up during the course of the trial. Missing data were imputed using mean proportions of improvement based on the outcome scores of similar patients with a second assessment. Large and significant improvement in favour of the intervention group was found on fatigue severity (effect size = 1.1) and overall impairment (effect size = 0.9) at the second assessment. Physical functioning and psychological distress improved moderately (effect size = 0.5). Treatment effects remained significant in sensitivity and per-protocol analyses. Subgroup analysis revealed that the effects of the intervention also remained significant when both group sizes (i.e. 4 and 8 patients) were compared separately with the waiting list condition. Conclusions: CBT can be effectively delivered in groups of CFS patients. Group size does not seem to affect the general efficacy of the intervention which is of importance for settings in which large treatment groups are not feasible due to limited referral.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000438867

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wiborg, J. F., van Bussel, J., van Dijk, A., Bleijenberg, G., & Knoop, H.
Affiliations
Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2015
Volume
84
Issue
6
Pages
368-376
ISSN
  • 0033-3190 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0348
OpenAlex
W1797720768
Cited by
52
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
chronic fatigue syndrome, cognitive behavioral therapy, group therapy, group size, waitlist control, fatigue severity, functional disability, physical function, psychological distress, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Group, Severity of Illness Index, Waiting Lists, Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review