4.7 Review

Fatigue and fatigability in neurologic illnesses Proposal for a unified taxonomy

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 80, Issue 4, Pages 409-416

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31827f07be

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [5 KL2 RR025779-03]
  2. US Army Research Laboratory
  3. US Army Research Office [W911NF1010192]
  4. NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES [KL2TR001080] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [KL2RR025779] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fatigue is commonly reported inmany neurologic illnesses, including multiple sclerosis, Parkinson disease, myasthenia gravis, traumatic brain injury, and stroke. Fatigue contributes substantially to decrements in quality of life and disability in these illnesses. Despite the clear impact of fatigue as a disabling symptom, our understanding of fatigue pathophysiology is limited and current treatment options rarely lead to meaningful improvements in fatigue. Progress continues to be hampered by issues related to terminology and assessment. In this article, we propose a unified taxonomy and a novel assessment approach to addressing distinct aspects of fatigue and fatigability in clinical and research settings. This taxonomy is based on our current knowledge of the pathophysiology and phenomenology of fatigue and fatigability. Application of our approach indicates that the assessment and reporting of fatigue can be clarified and improved by utilizing this taxonomy and creating measures to address distinct aspects of fatigue and fatigability. We review the strengths and weaknesses of several common measures of fatigue and suggest, based on our model, that many research questions may be better addressed by using multiple measures. We also provide examples of how to apply and validate the taxonomy and suggest directions for future research. Neurology (R) 2013;80:409-416

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available