A case for retiring the Oxford Criteria following the NIH P2P report which highlights the fact that the decades-old UK Royal Society of Medicine’s Oxford criteria for ME/CFS are severely “flawed,” and that continuing to use these criteria may “cause harm.” Further, the NIH report says that the Royal Society definition should “be retired” and replaced with a single case definition agreed to by the ME/CFS community.

The Oxford Criteria used in the flawed PACE trial cast further doubt about how valid such results actually are when treating the neurological condition defined by more specific criteria.

Last edited by

7 Replies

  • "If it is assumed that the Oxford criteria always capture Canadian-positive cases, then, based on the above figures, we expect that of a sample of 15 cases selected using the Oxford criteria, 14 will not meet the Canadian criteria. Therefore, if Oxford-positive cases are used to test a hypothesis related to a specific pathophysiological process observed in Canadian-positive cases, this could lead to the selection of 14 non-cases (false positives) for every 15 recruited; an unacceptable level of misclassification"

  • Held back by lack of gold standard

  • Thank you for full article link.

  • More time spent on doing something constructive about this than what should we call it or what does it look like. If this were a baby it would die of neglect during the time its parents spent arguing over names or the best food it should have.

  • Ease of use and specificity

  • Using fatigue in a name trivialises what patients feel