Cited by 491Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchLong-Term Effects of COVID-19Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

Cognitive behavior therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

Alicia C. Deale, Trudie Chalder, I. M. Marks, Simon C. Wessely·1997·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive behavior therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome was compared with relaxation in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Sixty patients with chronic fatigue syndrome were randomly assigned to 13 sessions of either cognitive behavior therapy (graded activity and cognitive restructuring) or relaxation. Outcome was evaluated by using measures of functional impairment, fatigue, mood, and global improvement. RESULTS: Treatment was completed by 53 patients. Functional impairment and fatigue improved more in the group that received cognitive behavior therapy. At final follow-up, 70% of the completers in the cognitive behavior therapy group achieved good outcomes (substantial improvement in physical functioning) compared with 19% of those in the relaxation group who completed treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive behavior therapy was more effective than a relaxation control in the management of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Improvements were sustained over 6 months of follow-up.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/ajp.154.3.408

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • CBT has been adapted and tested with CFS patients yielding superior results compared to standard medical treatment, relaxation, and adaptive pacing therapy, with moderate effect sizes (d = 0.48).

    “CBT has been adapted and tested with CFS patients yielding superior results compared to standard medical treatment, relaxation, and adaptive pacing therapy (Sharpe et al., 1996; Deale et al., 1997; White et al., 2011), with moderate effect sizes (d = 0.48) (Malouff et al., 2008).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Deale, A. C., Chalder, T., Marks, I. M., & Wessely, S. C.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
1997-03-01
Volume
154
Issue
3
Pages
408-414
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2122883493
Cited by
491
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 22
FWCI
26.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (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 › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
chronic fatigue syndrome, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation training, graded activity, cognitive restructuring, functional disability, fatigue, mood, treatment outcomes, follow-up
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Status, Humans, Male, Patient Dropouts, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Relaxation Therapy, 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