Fatigue questionnaires tell different stories in sickle cell disease
A review found that inconsistent definitions and measurement tools make fatigue scores difficult to compare across studies, limiting estimates of how common fatigue is.
Based on the published abstract. The full paper may contain additional methods, results and limitations.
The 30-second takeaway
The review found that studies did not measure fatigue in a consistent way. Questionnaires covered different aspects of the experience, and those aspects were often poorly defined. Consequently, a fatigue score from one study cannot automatically be compared with a score from another, making the overall burden of fatigue harder to establish.
This abstract-based account cannot identify which questionnaire performs best: the abstract does not provide tool-specific reliability or validity results, or enough detail to judge their suitability for individual patients.
What the questionnaires captured
Measures addressed physical, mental and emotional fatigue, alongside effects on motivation, activity and rest. This breadth matters because studies using the same general word, fatigue, may actually be asking about different experiences.
Why standardization matters
PROMIS was the most commonly used measurement system, but popularity alone does not establish that it is the best fit. The authors called for an assessment tailored to the fatigue experiences of people with sickle cell disease.
The original publication
Measurement of fatigue in sickle cell disease: a systematic review of fatigue measures.
Gourdin A, Oudin Doglioni D, Dannoune M et al.
Orphanet J Rare Dis · 2025
- PubMed ID
- 40903755
- Record checked
AI-assisted research and writing. This explains one selected publication; it is not a complete review of everything known. Our approach.
One more question, understood.
Keep track of the research you’ve explored.