Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 652

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cancer-Related Fatigue: Prevalence of Proposed Diagnostic Criteria in a United States Sample of Cancer Survivors

Cella, David, Davis, Kimberly, Breitbart, William, Curt, Gregory, for the Fatigue Coalition·2001·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the proposed cancer-related fatigue (CRF) diagnostic criteria in a sample of cancer survivors. More accurate prevalence estimates of CRF may result in improved diagnosis and management of one of the most common symptoms associated with cancer and its treatment. METHODS: Three hundred seventy-nine individuals who had been treated with chemotherapy, either alone or in combination with radiation therapy, were surveyed. Patients were asked background questions about their current condition, their medical history, and the frequency of fatigue during their chemotherapy. Additionally, patients who reported experiencing fatigue at least a few days each month during treatment were asked a series of questions about the impact of fatigue on their daily functioning. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one (37%) individuals reported at least 2 weeks of fatigue in the previous month. Of the respondents who had received their last treatment more than 5 years ago, 33% still reported at least a 2-week period of fatigue in the month before the interview. Evaluation of the proposed criteria revealed that 17% of respondents met at least two criteria for CRF. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of diagnosable CRF in the individuals in this sample, most of whom had completed treatment more than 1 year ago, was 17%—lower than expected based on previous reports that have used less-strict criteria. In a sizable number of people, CRF persists well beyond active treatment and should be a focus of intervention. Although they will require replication in other samples and clinical validation, these formal diagnostic criteria can be a step toward common language and a better understanding of the severity range and persistence of CRF.

Overview

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 · 10.1200/jco.2001.19.14.3385

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 652

Metadata

Authors
Cella, D., Davis, K., Breitbart, W., Curt, G., & Coalition, F. T. F.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2001-07-15
Volume
19
Issue
14
Pages
3385-3391
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1940235639
Cited by
652
References
1
FWCI
6.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cancer-Related Fatigue: Prevalence of Proposed Diagnostic Criteria in a United States Sample of Cancer Survivors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2001.19.14.3385
The paper
Cella, D., Davis, K., Breitbart, W., Curt, G., & Coalition, F. T. F. (2001). Cancer-Related Fatigue: Prevalence of Proposed Diagnostic Criteria in a United States Sample of Cancer Survivors. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.14.3385

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.