Table 5.

Included RCTs with diagnostic inclusion criteria with PEM as a required criterion (ME patients)

Author, Year Country	Intervention (I)	Comparison (C)	Participants details (I/C) Number allocated (N), Mean age (year) Gender (% female)	Diagnostic criteria	Duration Session duration Frequency No. of sessions (ss), period (# weeks)	Outcome measure momentsa (weeks)	Main outcome measures 1 Primary 2 Secondary	Adverse events Treatment withdrawn (I/C) ITTb	Results (benefits), compared to controlc Concl.—authors own conclusion
Pinxsterhuis et al 2017 [67] Norway	Group-based self-management education, based on a self-efficacy theory and the ‘energy envelope’ theory (pacing)	CAU	N = 146 (73/73) Age: 44 94% / 82%	CCC and CDC-94/Fukuda criteria	2.5 h every 2 weeks, 16 weeks	26 52	1: SF-36 2: FSS, SES, ICQ	No 2/6 No	Short: SF-36 ns, FSS (C) p < 0.05, SES p < 0.05, ICQ ns Long: all outcome ns Concl.: this self-management program for CFS patients did not show a sustained effect

Ss: sessions: ns non-significant, CAU: Care As Usual, FSS: Fatigue Severity Scale; ICQ: Illness-Cognition Questionnaire; SES: Self-Efficacy Scale; SF-36: Short Form Health Survey

^aRand: from randomisation moment, basel.: from baseline, post: (at) post-treatement

^bData for at least one key outcome was analyzed by ‘intention to treat’ analysis (ITT)

^cResults in favour of intervention. If results favours comparison intervention, ‘[C]’ is added. Post: post-treatment, Short-time follow-up, Long-longtime follow-up

^d‘Second-version’, with unknown modifications