4.6 Article

The Seasonal Fluctuation of Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.900792

关键词

multiple sclerosis; seasonal; fatigue; sun; neuropsychological

资金

  1. Novartis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seasonal variations and outdoor temperature have an impact on fatigue severity in patients with multiple sclerosis. Fatigue is higher in summer compared to winter. This finding should be taken into account when clinically monitoring fatigue.
Background: Fatigue is a common symptom in patients with multiple sclerosis. Several studies suggest that outdoor temperature can impact fatigue severity, but a systematic study of seasonal variations is lacking. Methods: Fatigue was assessed with the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions (FSMC) in a temperate climatic zone with an average outdoor temperature of 8.8 degrees C. This study included 258 patients with multiple sclerosis from 572 visits temporally distributed over the year. The data were adjusted for age, sex, cognition, depression, disease severity, and follow-up time. Linear regression models were performed to determine whether the temporal course of fatigue was time-independent, linearly time dependent, or non-linearly time dependent. Results: Fatigue was lowest during January (mean FSMC: 49.84) and highest during August (mean FSMC: 53.88). The regression analysis showed the best fit with a model that included months + months(2) , which was a non-linear time dependency. Mean FSMC per month correlated significantly with the average monthly temperature (rho = 0.972; p < 0.001). Conclusion: In multiple sclerosis, fatigue showed a natural temporal fluctuation. Fatigue was higher during summer compared to winter, with a significant relationship of fatigue with outdoor temperature. This finding should be carefully taken into account when clinically monitoring patients over time to not interpret higher or lower scores independent of seasonal aspects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据