New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Gets Controversial Redefinition

An HHS panel recommends changing the condition's name to "systemic exertion intolerance disease"

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The mysterious disease known as chronic-fatigue syndrome has long defied classification, as the millions of people who suffer from it show a wide variety of symptoms. Now a panel commissioned by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has produced what is sure to be an influential report on how the disease should be diagnosed. This new definition comes with a new moniker: systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID).

The report, released by the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) on February 10, says that the new name better reflects the key symptom of the disease—extreme exhaustion after any exertion. It argues that other symptoms, such as poor sleep and cognitive impairment, are secondary. But some experts are already challenging the name and revised diagnostic criteria.

Leonard Jason, a psychologist at DePaul University in Chicago, expects that patient advocacy groups will find fault with the new name, feeling that they were not adequately consulted. “As a community psychiatrist who values citizen participation in critical decisions, I think this was a strategic mistake,” he says.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In contrast, members of the IOM panel say that the new name could help patients suffering from the disease, whose existence has long been doubted and even mocked. “If I never hear another person say ’I'm chronically fatigued too,’ it won't be too soon,” says committee chair Ellen Wright Clayton, an expert on law and genetics at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.

Research has shown that even many physicians are sceptical about the existence of CFS, and most do not know how to diagnose it. More specific critieria should address that problem. “That will in the end get more people cared for and treated,” says Peter Rowe, a paediatrician and chronic-fatigue expert at Johns Hopkins University Children’s Center in Baltimore, Maryland, and a member of the IOM panel.

The report also attempts to simplify diagnostic criteria for the disease, addressing concerns that previous definitions were too complex. For instance, people who suffer from a mental illness can now be diagnosed with SEID. They had previously been excluded from a CFS diagnosis because the fatigue could be a symptom of depression.

Patients and researchers are universally thrilled about one aspect of the report: its definitive statement that the disease is real, not psychological. It even recommends that SEID be entered into the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10)—the book that physicians around the world use to make diagnoses. One patient at the IOM press conference described that as “the best thing that’s happened to me” since her CFS diagnosis years ago.

Still, chronic-fatigue expert Derek Enlander, a physician in New York City, worries that the new criteria are too broad, and will result in too many patients being diagnosed. The new name, he says, is bound to confuse patients, physicians, and researchers, especially those who are not familiar with the condition.

Enlander says that the HHS, which spent US$1 million on the report, is likely to adopt the new definition. Yet the debate over the diagnostic criteria is sure to continue. “This is round one,” Jacob says.

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on February 10, 2015.

Sara Reardon is a freelance biomedical journalist based in Bozeman, Mont. She is a former staff reporter at Nature, New Scientist and Science and has a master’s degree in molecular biology.

More by Sara Reardon

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe