Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Dec 20;12(12):CD003200.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub6.

Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome

Affiliations
Review

Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome

Lillebeth Larun et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is characterised by persistent, medically unexplained fatigue, as well as symptoms such as musculoskeletal pain, sleep disturbance, headaches and impaired concentration and short-term memory. CFS presents as a common, debilitating and serious health problem. Treatment may include physical interventions, such as exercise therapy, which was last reviewed in 2004.

Objectives: The objective of this review was to determine the effects of exercise therapy (ET) for patients with CFS as compared with any other intervention or control.• Exercise therapy versus 'passive control' (e.g. treatment as usual, waiting-list control, relaxation, flexibility).• Exercise therapy versus other active treatment (e.g. cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), cognitive treatment, supportive therapy, pacing, pharmacological therapy such as antidepressants).• Exercise therapy in combination with other specified treatment strategies versus other specified treatment strategies (e.g. exercise combined with pharmacological treatment vs pharmacological treatment alone).

Search methods: We searched The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and SPORTDiscus up to May 2014 using a comprehensive list of free-text terms for CFS and exercise. We located unpublished or ongoing trials through the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to May 2014). We screened reference lists of retrieved articles and contacted experts in the field for additional studies SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials involving adults with a primary diagnosis of CFS who were able to participate in exercise therapy. Studies had to compare exercise therapy with passive control, psychological therapies, adaptive pacing therapy or pharmacological therapy.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessments and data extraction. We combined continuous measures of outcomes using mean differences (MDs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs). We combined serious adverse reactions and drop-outs using risk ratios (RRs). We calculated an overall effect size with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome.

Main results: We have included eight randomised controlled studies and have reported data from 1518 participants in this review. Three studies diagnosed individuals with CFS using the 1994 criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); five used the Oxford criteria. Exercise therapy lasted from 12 to 26 weeks. Seven studies used variations of aerobic exercise therapy such as walking, swimming, cycling or dancing provided at mixed levels in terms of intensity of the aerobic exercise from very low to quite rigorous, whilst one study used anaerobic exercise. Control groups consisted of passive control (eight studies; e.g. treatment as usual, relaxation, flexibility) or CBT (two studies), cognitive therapy (one study), supportive listening (one study), pacing (one study), pharmacological treatment (one study) and combination treatment (one study). Risk of bias varied across studies, but within each study, little variation was found in the risk of bias across our primary and secondary outcome measures.Investigators compared exercise therapy with 'passive' control in eight trials, which enrolled 971 participants. Seven studies consistently showed a reduction in fatigue following exercise therapy at end of treatment, even though the fatigue scales used different scoring systems: an 11-item scale with a scoring system of 0 to 11 points (MD -6.06, 95% CI -6.95 to -5.17; one study, 148 participants; low-quality evidence); the same 11-item scale with a scoring system of 0 to 33 points (MD -2.82, 95% CI -4.07 to -1.57; three studies, 540 participants; moderate-quality evidence); and a 14-item scale with a scoring system of 0 to 42 points (MD -6.80, 95% CI -10.31 to -3.28; three studies, 152 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Serious adverse reactions were rare in both groups (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.97; one study, 319 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but sparse data made it impossible for review authors to draw conclusions. Study authors reported a positive effect of exercise therapy at end of treatment with respect to sleep (MD -1.49, 95% CI -2.95 to -0.02; two studies, 323 participants), physical functioning (MD 13.10, 95% CI 1.98 to 24.22; five studies, 725 participants) and self-perceived changes in overall health (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.40; four studies, 489 participants). It was not possible for review authors to draw conclusions regarding the remaining outcomes.Investigators compared exercise therapy with CBT in two trials (351 participants). One trial (298 participants) reported little or no difference in fatigue at end of treatment between the two groups using an 11-item scale with a scoring system of 0 to 33 points (MD 0.20, 95% CI -1.49 to 1.89). Both studies measured differences in fatigue at follow-up, but neither found differences between the two groups using an 11-item fatigue scale with a scoring system of 0 to 33 points (MD 0.30, 95% CI -1.45 to 2.05) and a nine-item Fatigue Severity Scale with a scoring system of 1 to 7 points (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.14). Serious adverse reactions were rare in both groups (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.96). We observed little or no difference in physical functioning, depression, anxiety and sleep, and we were not able to draw any conclusions with regard to pain, self-perceived changes in overall health, use of health service resources and drop-out rate.With regard to other comparisons, one study (320 participants) suggested a general benefit of exercise over adaptive pacing, and another study (183 participants) a benefit of exercise over supportive listening. The available evidence was too sparse to draw conclusions about the effect of pharmaceutical interventions.

Authors' conclusions: Patients with CFS may generally benefit and feel less fatigued following exercise therapy, and no evidence suggests that exercise therapy may worsen outcomes. A positive effect with respect to sleep, physical function and self-perceived general health has been observed, but no conclusions for the outcomes of pain, quality of life, anxiety, depression, drop-out rate and health service resources were possible. The effectiveness of exercise therapy seems greater than that of pacing but similar to that of CBT. Randomised trials with low risk of bias are needed to investigate the type, duration and intensity of the most beneficial exercise intervention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

LL: nothing to declare. KGB: nothing to declare. JO‐J: nothing to declare. JRP: nothing to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Analysis 1.1
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 1 Fatigue (end of treatment).
Analysis 1.2
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 2 Fatigue (follow‐up).
Analysis 1.3
Analysis 1.3
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 3 Participants with serious adverse reactions.
Analysis 1.4
Analysis 1.4
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 4 Pain (follow‐up).
Analysis 1.5
Analysis 1.5
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 5 Physical functioning (end of treatment).
Analysis 1.6
Analysis 1.6
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 6 Physical functioning (follow‐up).
Analysis 1.7
Analysis 1.7
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 7 Quality of life (follow‐up).
Analysis 1.8
Analysis 1.8
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 8 Depression (end of treatment).
Analysis 1.9
Analysis 1.9
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 9 Depression (follow‐up).
Analysis 1.10
Analysis 1.10
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 10 Anxiety (end of treatment).
Analysis 1.11
Analysis 1.11
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 11 Anxiety (follow‐up).
Analysis 1.12
Analysis 1.12
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 12 Sleep (end of treatment).
Analysis 1.13
Analysis 1.13
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 13 Sleep (follow‐up).
Analysis 1.14
Analysis 1.14
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 14 Self‐perceived changes in overall health (end of treatment).
Analysis 1.15
Analysis 1.15
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 15 Self‐perceived changes in overall health (follow‐up).
Analysis 1.16
Analysis 1.16
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 16 Health resource use (follow‐up) [Mean no. of contacts].
Analysis 1.17
Analysis 1.17
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 17 Health resource use (follow‐up) [No. of users].
Analysis 1.18
Analysis 1.18
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 18 Drop‐out.
Analysis 1.19
Analysis 1.19
Comparison 1 Exercise therapy versus treatment as usual, relaxation or flexibility, Outcome 19 Subgroup analysis for fatigue.
Analysis 2.1
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 1 Fatigue at end of treatment (FS; 11 items/0 to 33 points).
Analysis 2.2
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 2 Fatigue at follow‐up (FSS; 1 to 7 points).
Analysis 2.3
Analysis 2.3
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 3 Fatigue at follow‐up (FS; 11 items/0 to 33 points).
Analysis 2.4
Analysis 2.4
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 4 Participants with serious adverse reactions.
Analysis 2.5
Analysis 2.5
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 5 Pain at follow‐up (BPI, pain severity subscale; 0 to 10 points).
Analysis 2.6
Analysis 2.6
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 6 Pain at follow‐up (BPI, pain interference subscale; 0 to 10 points).
Analysis 2.7
Analysis 2.7
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 7 Physical functioning at end of treatment (SF‐36, physical functioning subscale; 0 to 100 points).
Analysis 2.8
Analysis 2.8
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 8 Physical functioning at follow‐up (SF‐36, physical functioning subscale; 0 to 100 points).
Analysis 2.9
Analysis 2.9
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 9 Depression at end of treatment (HADS depression score; 7 items/21 points).
Analysis 2.10
Analysis 2.10
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 10 Depression at follow‐up (BDI; 0 to 63 points).
Analysis 2.11
Analysis 2.11
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 11 Depression at follow‐up (HADS depression score; 7 items/21 points).
Analysis 2.12
Analysis 2.12
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 12 Anxiety at end of treatment (HADS anxiety; 7 items/21 points).
Analysis 2.13
Analysis 2.13
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 13 Anxiety at follow‐up (BAI; 0 to 63 points).
Analysis 2.14
Analysis 2.14
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 14 Anxiety at follow‐up (HADS anxiety; 7 items/21 points).
Analysis 2.15
Analysis 2.15
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 15 Sleep at end of treatment (Jenkins Sleep Scale; 0 to 20 points).
Analysis 2.16
Analysis 2.16
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 16 Sleep at follow‐up (Jenkins Sleep Scale; 0 to 20 points).
Analysis 2.17
Analysis 2.17
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 17 Self‐perceived changes in overall health at end of treatment.
Analysis 2.18
Analysis 2.18
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 18 Self‐perceived changes in overall health at follow‐up.
Analysis 2.19
Analysis 2.19
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 19 Health resource use (follow‐up) [Mean no. of contacts].
Analysis 2.20
Analysis 2.20
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 20 Health resource use (follow‐up) [No. of users].
Analysis 2.21
Analysis 2.21
Comparison 2 Exercise therapy versus psychological treatment, Outcome 21 Drop‐out.
Analysis 3.1
Analysis 3.1
Comparison 3 Exercise therapy versus adaptive pacing, Outcome 1 Fatigue.
Analysis 3.2
Analysis 3.2
Comparison 3 Exercise therapy versus adaptive pacing, Outcome 2 Participants with serious adverse reactions.
Analysis 3.3
Analysis 3.3
Comparison 3 Exercise therapy versus adaptive pacing, Outcome 3 Physical functioning.
Analysis 3.4
Analysis 3.4
Comparison 3 Exercise therapy versus adaptive pacing, Outcome 4 Depression.
Analysis 3.5
Analysis 3.5
Comparison 3 Exercise therapy versus adaptive pacing, Outcome 5 Anxiety.
Analysis 3.6
Analysis 3.6
Comparison 3 Exercise therapy versus adaptive pacing, Outcome 6 Sleep.
Analysis 3.7
Analysis 3.7
Comparison 3 Exercise therapy versus adaptive pacing, Outcome 7 Self‐perceived changes in overall health.
Analysis 3.8
Analysis 3.8
Comparison 3 Exercise therapy versus adaptive pacing, Outcome 8 Health resource use (follow‐up) [Mean no. of contacts].
Analysis 3.9
Analysis 3.9
Comparison 3 Exercise therapy versus adaptive pacing, Outcome 9 Health resource use (follow‐up) [No. of users].
Analysis 3.10
Analysis 3.10
Comparison 3 Exercise therapy versus adaptive pacing, Outcome 10 Drop‐out.
Analysis 4.1
Analysis 4.1
Comparison 4 Exercise therapy + antidepressant placebo versus antidepressant + exercise placebo, Outcome 1 Fatigue.
Analysis 4.2
Analysis 4.2
Comparison 4 Exercise therapy + antidepressant placebo versus antidepressant + exercise placebo, Outcome 2 Depression.
Analysis 4.3
Analysis 4.3
Comparison 4 Exercise therapy + antidepressant placebo versus antidepressant + exercise placebo, Outcome 3 Drop‐out.
Analysis 5.1
Analysis 5.1
Comparison 5 Exercise therapy + antidepressant versus antidepressant + exercise placebo, Outcome 1 Fatigue.
Analysis 5.2
Analysis 5.2
Comparison 5 Exercise therapy + antidepressant versus antidepressant + exercise placebo, Outcome 2 Depression.
Analysis 5.3
Analysis 5.3
Comparison 5 Exercise therapy + antidepressant versus antidepressant + exercise placebo, Outcome 3 Drop‐out.

Update of

Similar articles

Cited by

References

References to studies included in this review

    1. Fulcher KY, White PD. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a description of graded exercise treatment. Physiotherapy 1998;84(9):223‐6. []
    2. Fulcher KY, White PD. Randomised controlled trial of graded exercise in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. BMJ 1997;314(7095):1647‐52. [] - PMC - PubMed
    3. White PD, Fulcher KY. A randomised controlled trial of graded exercise in patients with a chronic fatigue. Royal College of Psychiatrists Winter Meeting, Cardiff. 1997. [] - PMC - PubMed
    4. 2892995

    1. Hlavaty LE, Brown MM, Jason LA. The effect of homework compliance on treatment outcomes for participants with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Rehabilitation Psychology 2011;56(3):212‐8. [] - PMC - PubMed
    2. Jason L, Torres‐Harding S, Friedberg F, Corradi K, Njoku M Donalek J, et al. Non‐pharmacologic interventions for CFS: a randomized trial. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings 2007;172:485‐90. []
    3. 2892999

    1. Moss‐Morriss R, Sharon C, Tobin R, Baldi JC. A randomized controlled graded exercise trial for chronic fatigue syndrome: outcomes and mechanisms of change. Journal of Health Psychology 2005;10(2):245‐59. [] - PubMed
    2. 2893002

    1. Powell P, Bentall ROP, Nye FJ, Edwards RHT. Patient education to encourage graded exercise in chronic fatigue syndrome: 2‐year follow‐up of randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry 2004;184:142‐6. [] - PubMed
    2. Powell P, Bentall RP, Nye FJ, Edwards RH. Randomised controlled trial of patient education to encourage graded exercise in chronic fatigue syndrome. BMJ 2001;322(7283):387‐90. [] - PMC - PubMed
    3. 2893004

    1. Wallman KE, Morton AR, Goodman C, Grove R. Exercise prescription for individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome. Medical Journal of Australia 2005;183(3):142‐3. [] - PubMed
    2. Wallman KE, Morton AR, Goodman C, Grove R, Guilfoyle AM. Randomised controlled trial of graded exercise in chronic fatigue syndrome. Medical Journal of Australia 2004;180(9):444‐8. [] - PubMed
    3. 2893007

References to studies excluded from this review

    1. Evering RMH. Ambulatory feedback at daily physical activity patterns. A treatment for the chronic fatigue syndrome in the home environment?. Universitet Twente, Netherlands2013:1‐223. []
    2. Evering RMH. Optimalization of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for CFS patients in rehabilitation by means of ambulatory activity‐based feedback (ABF). trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1513 (accessed 7 May 2013). []
    3. 2893027

    1. Gordon BA, Knapman LM, Lubitz L. Graduated exercise training and progressive resistance training in adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled pilot study. Clinical Rehabilitation 2010;24:1072‐9. [; DOI: 10.1177/0269215510371429] - DOI - PubMed
    2. 2893030

    1. Guarino P, Peduzzi P, Donta ST, Engel CC Jr, Clauw DJ, Williams DA, et al. A multicenter two by two factorial trial of cognitive behavioral therapy and aerobic exercise for gulf war veterans' illnesses: design of a Veterans Affairs cooperative study (CSP #470). Controlled Clinical Trials 2001;22:31032. [] - PubMed
    2. 2893032

    1. Nunez M, Fernandez Soles J, Nunez E, Fernandez Huerta JM, Godas Sieso T, Gomez Gil E. Health‐related quality of life in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: group cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise versus usual treatment. A randomised controlled trial with 1 year of follow‐up. Clinical Rheumatology 2011;30(3):381‐9. [] - PubMed
    2. 2893034

    1. Risdale L, Darbishire L, Seed T. Is graded exercise better than cognitive behaviour therapy for fatigue? A UK randomized trial in primary care. Psychological Medicine 2003;34:37‐49. [] - PubMed
    2. 2893036

References to studies awaiting assessment

    1. Hatcher S. A randomised double‐blind placebo controlled trial of dothiepin and graded activity in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome. Personal communication, 1998. []
    2. 2893059

    1. Liu CZ, Lei B. Effect of Tuina on oxygen free radicals metabolism in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome [Chinese]. Zhongguo Zhenjiu 2010;11:946‐8. [] - PubMed
    2. 2893061

    1. Zhuo J‐X, Gu L‐Y. Relative research on treating chronic fatigue syndrome with gradual exercise. Journal of Beijing Sport University 2007;30(6):801‐3. []
    2. 2893063

References to ongoing studies

    1. Broadbent S, Coutts R. The protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing intermittent and graded exercise to usual care for chronic fatigue syndrome patients. BMC Sports Science, Medicine & Rehabilitation 2013;5(1):1‐6. [] - PMC - PubMed
    2. Broadbent S. A pilot study on the effects of intermittent and graded exercise compared to no exercise for optimising health and reducing symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) patients. anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12612001241820 (accessed 7 May 2013). []
    3. 2893065

    1. Kos D, Nijs J. Pacing activity self‐management for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: randomized controlled clinical trial, 2012. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01512342 (accessed 7 May 2013). []
    2. 2893068

    1. Marques M, Gucht V, Maes S, Leal I. Protocol for the "four steps to control your fatigue (4‐STEPS)" randomised controlled trial: a self‐regulation based physical activity intervention for patients with unexplained chronic fatigue. BMC Public Health 2012;12:202. [; DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-202] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    2. 2893070

    1. Vos‐Vromans D. Is a multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment more effective than mono disciplinary cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome? A multi centre randomised controlled trial [FatiGo, ISRCTN77567702]. http://www.controlled‐trials.com/isrctn/pf/77567702 (accessed 7 May 2013). [; ISRCTN77567702 ]
    2. Vos‐Vromans DCWM, Smeets RJEM, Rijnders LJM, Gorrissen RRM, Pont M, Köke AJA, et al. Cognitive behavioural therapy versus multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (FatiGo). Trials [electronic resource] 2012;13:71. [] - PMC - PubMed
    3. 2893072

    1. White PD. Therapy guided self‐help treatment (GETSET) for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: a randomised controlled trial in secondary care. ISRCTN22975026, 2012. http://www.controlled‐trials.com/ISRCTN22975026/GETSET (accessed 30 Octrober 2014). []
    2. 2893075

Additional references

    1. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM`s Resource Manual for Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 4th Edition. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001.
    1. Adams D, Wu T, Yang X, Tai S, Vohra S. Traditional Chinese medicinal herbs for the treatment of idiopathic chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009;4:1‐16. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006348.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JP, editors. Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook 4.2.2 [updated December 2003]. The Cochrane Library, Issue 1. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2004.
    1. Bagnall AM, Whiting P, Richardson R, Sowden AJ. Interventions for the treatment and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2001;11(3):284‐8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory‐II. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory‐II. San Antonio: Psychological Cooperation, 1996.