Talk:Post-viral fatigue syndrome
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Post-viral fatigue syndrome redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Post-viral fatigue syndrome.
|
PVFS/CFS
editPlease note: Post-viral fatigue syndrome is a rather different classification from chronic fatigue syndrome. Do not just delete this article and make it into a redirect. PVFS comprises many instances, such as post-polio, which are clearly not CFS/ME, and most of which have a known etiology.
Feyandstrange 19:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. PVFS is the group header of G93.3 in the ICD10, CFS and ME are two of several diagnoses falling or potentially falling under that header (ME is in the tabular list (volume 1)), CFS appears in the alphabetic list (volume 3). Guido den Broeder 07:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
PVFS question
editI recently completed 12 months of Interferon/Ribavirin treatment for Hep-C and feel that I am suffering from Post-viral fatique Syndrome. How can I find out more about this subject? <e-mail redacted> - in history WLU (t)/(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
Gene expression
editRecent findings of altered gene expression found by Australian researchers in glandular fever/ epstein barr virus/ mononucleosis postinfective fatigue, [1] seem different to those found recently by the CDC in CFS described here and support the notion that post viral-fatigue is different to CFS. Jagra 00:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Cameron B, Galbraith S, Zhang Y; et al. (2007). "Gene expression correlates of postinfective fatigue syndrome after infectious mononucleosis". J. Infect. Dis. 196 (1): 56–66. doi:10.1086/518614. PMID 17538884.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- It does not and, in fact, no such notion exists. Guido den Broeder 18:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Fact tag
editNote that the fact tag is just to give a reference for the statement in the first sentence - since the page is not very long, the normal rules of a lead (summarize what's below) can't really apply, so this very basic statement should be supported with a very basic reference - if the information is contained in one of the other references extant, that'd be fine, use the <ref name = whatever/> template to cite it a second time. WLU 14:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. Guido den Broeder 14:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Great, good addition. WLU 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Differential DX
edit"Post-viral syndromes may also include: post-polio syndrome, late Lyme disease, and possibly chronic mononucleosis or other..."
I would have thought PV[F]S as defined in 1991(?) by Sharpe et al (part of the Oxford CFS definition) explicitly excludes post polio and other recognised illnesses on the basis that CFS supposedly has no detectable abnormalities or signs in the UK answer to CDC 1988. It needs to be made clearer that some people use PVFS in this specific illness sense, while others use it in a general descriptive sense. And also that it's a term that with respect to CFS, has generally fallen out of favour (personally I don't think it helps any more than CFS.)
Would chronic mono by definition be a viral syndrome rather than a post-viral syndrome? And what relationship does Lyme (bacterial) have with viruses? MEspringal (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, PVFS exludes post-polio syndrome, but the sentence you quoted is talking about "post-viral syndromes", not "post-viral fatigue syndrome(s)." This is a bit confusing, as it is easy to read incorrectly. For some reason some people classify chronic infections like chronic mono as "post-viral syndromes," I'm not sure why. I guess it may be because they assume they are in fact not chronic infections, but sequelae of them (like it is disputed whether "chronic Lyme" is really a chronic infection).
- Of course, including Lyme disease (caused by Borrelia burgdorferi) in this article indeed makes no sense, so I removed it. I wonder how come it was allowed to stay for so long? DiamonDie (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Oxford CFS definition is erroneous. PVFS does not equal CFS but denotes a group of conditions, G93.3 in the WHO classification. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
CFS equivalency
editI think we need a better source if we're going to equate PVFS and CFS in the intro. The cited source added by RetroS1mone only includes PVFS in an appendix entitled "Search Strategy". I'm not sure that would qualify as MEDRS, since it isn't an outright statement in the body of the text.--Rob (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Redirect
editI could find no mention of "post viral fatigue syndrome" in PubMed, and "post viral fatigue" appears to be all mentioning CFS. It is therefore appropriate to redirect there. Yobol (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)