↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of and risk factors for severe cognitive and sleep symptoms in ME/CFS and MS

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 2,726)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
100 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
13 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prevalence of and risk factors for severe cognitive and sleep symptoms in ME/CFS and MS
Published in
BMC Neurology, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12883-017-0896-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vageesh Jain, Amit Arunkumar, Caroline Kingdon, Eliana Lacerda, Luis Nacul

Abstract

There are considerable phenotypic and neuroimmune overlaps between myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and multiple sclerosis (MS). While the precise aetiologies of both MS and ME/CFS are unclear, evidence suggests that deterioration in cognitive function is widely prevalent in patients with either condition. Little is known about differing risk factors or exposures, which may lead to severe cognitive or sleep symptoms. This study aims to gauge the extent of cognitive and sleep symptoms in ME/CFS and MS patients participating in the UK ME/CFS Biobank and identify the characteristics of those experiencing severe symptoms. This was a cross-sectional study of 395 UK ME/CFS Biobank participants, recruited from primary care and the community, using similar standardised protocols, and matched by age, sex and geographical area. Data were collected from participants using a standardized written questionnaire at clinical visits. Cognitive symptoms included problems with short-term memory, attention, and executive function. Sleep symptoms included unrefreshing sleep and poor quality or inadequate duration of sleep. All participants reported symptoms based on an ordinal severity scale. Multivariable logistic regression was carried out in the ME/CFS group to investigate socio-demographic factors associated with severe symptoms. All cognitive and sleep symptoms were more prevalent in the ME/CFS group, with 'trouble concentrating' (98.3%) the most commonly reported symptom. Severe symptoms were also more commonly reported in the ME/CFS group, with 55% reporting 'severe, unrefreshing sleep'. Similarly, in the MS group, the most commonly reported severe symptoms were sleep-related. Logistic regression analysis revealed that ME/CFS patients aged over 50 years were more than three times as likely to experience severe symptoms than those younger than 30 (OR 3.23, p = 0.031). Current smoking was associated with severe symptoms, increasing the risk by approximately three times (OR 2.93, p = 0.003) and those with household incomes of more than £15,000 per year were less likely to experience severe symptoms compared to those earning less than this (OR 0.31, p = 0.017). Cognitive and sleep symptoms are more common in ME/CFS patients than in MS patients and healthy controls, providing further support for existing evidence of central nervous system abnormalities in ME/CFS. Our findings suggest that people with ME/CFS who are smokers, or have a low income, are more likely to report severe cognitive and sleep symptoms. Future research should aim to develop strategies to prevent the progression of severe cognitive and sleep symptoms through early interventions that prioritise patients identified as being at highest risk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 17%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Master 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 33 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Psychology 10 9%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 37 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2022.
All research outputs
#511,383
of 25,757,133 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#23
of 2,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,729
of 331,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#3
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,757,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,073 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.