Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > ‘Pacing’ for management of myalgic encephalomye...

Associated organisational unit

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

‘Pacing’ for management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineReview articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

‘Pacing’ for management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS): a systematic review and meta-analysis. / Sanal-Hayes, Nilihan E.M.; Mclaughlin, Marie; Mair, Jacqueline L. et al.
In: Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health Behavior, Vol. 13, No. 1, 31.01.2025, p. 36-53.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineReview articlepeer-review

Harvard

Sanal-Hayes, NEM, Mclaughlin, M, Mair, JL, Ormerod, J, Carless, D, Meach, R, Hilliard, N, Ingram, J, Sculthorpe, NF & Hayes, LD 2025, '‘Pacing’ for management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS): a systematic review and meta-analysis', Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health Behavior, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 36-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/21641846.2024.2433390

APA

Sanal-Hayes, N. E. M., Mclaughlin, M., Mair, J. L., Ormerod, J., Carless, D., Meach, R., Hilliard, N., Ingram, J., Sculthorpe, N. F., & Hayes, L. D. (2025). ‘Pacing’ for management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health Behavior, 13(1), 36-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/21641846.2024.2433390

Vancouver

Sanal-Hayes NEM, Mclaughlin M, Mair JL, Ormerod J, Carless D, Meach R et al. ‘Pacing’ for management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health Behavior. 2025 Jan 31;13(1):36-53. Epub 2024 Nov 29. doi: 10.1080/21641846.2024.2433390

Author

Sanal-Hayes, Nilihan E.M. ; Mclaughlin, Marie ; Mair, Jacqueline L. et al. / ‘Pacing’ for management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) : a systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health Behavior. 2025 ; Vol. 13, No. 1. pp. 36-53.

Bibtex

@article{6e6cd82607a64758854674c6d9ca276f,
title = "{\textquoteleft}Pacing{\textquoteright} for management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS): a systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "BackgroundPacing typically comprises regulating activity to avoid post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion, the worsening of symptoms after an activity. Yet, the efficacy of pacing to improve symptomology is unclear.ObjectiveWe aimed to undertake a PRISMA-accordant meta-analysis concerning the effect of pacing on ME/CFS patients{\textquoteright} symptoms.Data sourcesSix electronic databases (PubMed, Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) were searched; and websites MEPedia, Action for ME, and ME Action were also searched for grey literature.Study selectionStudies (k = 5) selected from the 210 identified included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; k = 2), uncontrolled trials (UCTs; k = 1), intervention case series (k = 1), and sub-analysis of the PACE trial (k = 1), all of which had a pacing component, and an outcome measure reported pre- and post-pacing.Study appraisal and methodsThree separate meta-analyses were conducted on changes in symptoms using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and random-effects models.ResultsThe overall SMD showed pacing improved physical function (k = 4, SMD = 0.15 [95% CI = −0.39, 0.68], p = 0.5951). Pacing improved pain (k = 4, SMD = −0.11 [95% CI = −0.32, 0.10], p = 0.3090). Pacing improved fatigue (k = 4, SMD = −1.09 [95% CI = −2.38, 0.21], p = 0.0998).ConclusionsPacing exerted a trivial beneficial effect on physical function and pain. Fatigue was improved with a large effect, which did reach the p < 0.05 level. We cautiously conclude pacing likely exerts some beneficial effects on symptomology, particularly, fatigue, in people with ME/CFS. However, the level of empirical research is insufficient, and more high-quality RCTs are essential to support the NICE guidelines.",
keywords = "chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalomyelitis, Pacing, pain, fatigue, physical function",
author = "Sanal-Hayes, {Nilihan E.M.} and Marie Mclaughlin and Mair, {Jacqueline L.} and Jane Ormerod and David Carless and Rachel Meach and Natalie Hilliard and Joanne Ingram and Sculthorpe, {Nicholas F.} and Hayes, {Lawrence D.}",
year = "2025",
month = jan,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1080/21641846.2024.2433390",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "36--53",
journal = "Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health Behavior",
issn = "2164-1846",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - ‘Pacing’ for management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)

T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Sanal-Hayes, Nilihan E.M.

AU - Mclaughlin, Marie

AU - Mair, Jacqueline L.

AU - Ormerod, Jane

AU - Carless, David

AU - Meach, Rachel

AU - Hilliard, Natalie

AU - Ingram, Joanne

AU - Sculthorpe, Nicholas F.

AU - Hayes, Lawrence D.

PY - 2025/1/31

Y1 - 2025/1/31

N2 - BackgroundPacing typically comprises regulating activity to avoid post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion, the worsening of symptoms after an activity. Yet, the efficacy of pacing to improve symptomology is unclear.ObjectiveWe aimed to undertake a PRISMA-accordant meta-analysis concerning the effect of pacing on ME/CFS patients’ symptoms.Data sourcesSix electronic databases (PubMed, Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) were searched; and websites MEPedia, Action for ME, and ME Action were also searched for grey literature.Study selectionStudies (k = 5) selected from the 210 identified included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; k = 2), uncontrolled trials (UCTs; k = 1), intervention case series (k = 1), and sub-analysis of the PACE trial (k = 1), all of which had a pacing component, and an outcome measure reported pre- and post-pacing.Study appraisal and methodsThree separate meta-analyses were conducted on changes in symptoms using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and random-effects models.ResultsThe overall SMD showed pacing improved physical function (k = 4, SMD = 0.15 [95% CI = −0.39, 0.68], p = 0.5951). Pacing improved pain (k = 4, SMD = −0.11 [95% CI = −0.32, 0.10], p = 0.3090). Pacing improved fatigue (k = 4, SMD = −1.09 [95% CI = −2.38, 0.21], p = 0.0998).ConclusionsPacing exerted a trivial beneficial effect on physical function and pain. Fatigue was improved with a large effect, which did reach the p < 0.05 level. We cautiously conclude pacing likely exerts some beneficial effects on symptomology, particularly, fatigue, in people with ME/CFS. However, the level of empirical research is insufficient, and more high-quality RCTs are essential to support the NICE guidelines.

AB - BackgroundPacing typically comprises regulating activity to avoid post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion, the worsening of symptoms after an activity. Yet, the efficacy of pacing to improve symptomology is unclear.ObjectiveWe aimed to undertake a PRISMA-accordant meta-analysis concerning the effect of pacing on ME/CFS patients’ symptoms.Data sourcesSix electronic databases (PubMed, Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) were searched; and websites MEPedia, Action for ME, and ME Action were also searched for grey literature.Study selectionStudies (k = 5) selected from the 210 identified included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; k = 2), uncontrolled trials (UCTs; k = 1), intervention case series (k = 1), and sub-analysis of the PACE trial (k = 1), all of which had a pacing component, and an outcome measure reported pre- and post-pacing.Study appraisal and methodsThree separate meta-analyses were conducted on changes in symptoms using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and random-effects models.ResultsThe overall SMD showed pacing improved physical function (k = 4, SMD = 0.15 [95% CI = −0.39, 0.68], p = 0.5951). Pacing improved pain (k = 4, SMD = −0.11 [95% CI = −0.32, 0.10], p = 0.3090). Pacing improved fatigue (k = 4, SMD = −1.09 [95% CI = −2.38, 0.21], p = 0.0998).ConclusionsPacing exerted a trivial beneficial effect on physical function and pain. Fatigue was improved with a large effect, which did reach the p < 0.05 level. We cautiously conclude pacing likely exerts some beneficial effects on symptomology, particularly, fatigue, in people with ME/CFS. However, the level of empirical research is insufficient, and more high-quality RCTs are essential to support the NICE guidelines.

KW - chronic fatigue syndrome

KW - myalgic encephalomyelitis

KW - Pacing

KW - pain

KW - fatigue

KW - physical function

U2 - 10.1080/21641846.2024.2433390

DO - 10.1080/21641846.2024.2433390

M3 - Review article

VL - 13

SP - 36

EP - 53

JO - Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health Behavior

JF - Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health Behavior

SN - 2164-1846

IS - 1

ER -