Cited by 72Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchDigital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Efficacy of web-based cognitive–behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial

Open access
Janse, A., Worm-Smeitink, M., Bleijenberg, G., Donders, R., Knoop, H.·2018·The British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Face-to-face cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) leads to a reduction of fatigue in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Aims: To test the efficacy of internet-based CBT (iCBT) for adults with CFS. Method: A total of 240 patients with CFS were randomised to either iCBT with protocol-driven therapist feedback or with therapist feedback on demand, or a waiting list. Primary outcome was fatigue severity assessed with the Checklist Individual Strength (Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4013). Results: Compared with a waiting list, intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed a significant reduction of fatigue for both iCBT conditions (protocol-driven feedback: B = −8.3, 97.5% CI −12.7 to −3.9, P < 0.0001; feedback on demand: B = −7.2, 97.5% CI −11.3 to –3.1, P < 0.0001). No significant differences were found between both iCBT conditions on all outcome measures ( P = 0.3–0.9). An exploratory analysis revealed that feedback-on-demand iCBT required less therapist time (mean 4 h 37 min) than iCBT with protocol-driven feedback (mean 6 h 9 min, P < 0.001) and also less than face-to-face CBT as reported in the literature. Conclusions: Both iCBT conditions are efficacious and time efficient. Declaration of interest: None.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1192/bjp.2017.22

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Post-exertional malaise could not be systematically aggregated as it was seldom assessed and not uniformly reported.

    “However, post-exertional malaise – which has been proposed as a cardinal symptom for myalgic encephalomyelitis/CFS in the latest NICE-guidelines [14]– could not be systematically aggregated as it was seldom assessed and not uniformly reported [29, 35, 42].”

    From Efficacy and Acceptance of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Adults with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Meta-analysis. (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Primary and Secondary outcome measures sections list fatigue, functioning, psychological distress and adverse events, but no post-exertional malaise measure. This trial therefore supports the narrower point that post-exertional malaise was not specifically assessed here; it does not establish that it was seldom assessed across studies, reported inconsistently, or impossible to aggregate systematically. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For fatigue, there was one outlier [33], as well as for perceived health status [46], non-completion [29], and treatment refusal [43].

    “For fatigue, there was one outlier [33] as well as for perceived health status [46], non-completion [29], and treatment refusal [43].”

    From Efficacy and Acceptance of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Adults with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Meta-analysis. (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Results report that some patients did not start the intervention, and Fig. 1 describes patient flow, but neither passage identifies treatment refusal as an outlier. Searches for treatment refusal and declined participation found no passage in our copy supporting the outlier designation. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Derogatis LR. SCL-90-R: Administration, Scoring and Procedures Manual (3rd edn). NCS Pearson, 1994.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Janse, A., Worm-Smeitink, M., Bleijenberg, G., Donders, R., & Knoop, H.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Knoop, H.
Venue
The British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2018-02
Volume
212
Issue
2
Pages
112-118
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2792151126
Cited by
72
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
chronic fatigue syndrome, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, fatigue severity, therapist feedback, Checklist Individual Strength
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Telemedicine, Internet, Young Adult

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