Several studies do provide estimates for the prevalence of ME/CFS in the UK – and elsewhere in the world – with published figures for the UK ranging from 0.1% to 2.62%.
Peer-reviewed estimates for the UK were all published before 2018 – most recently, a pre-print study (which has not yet been peer-reviewed) that uses information from hospital records in England up until 2022, has suggested a prevalence rate of 0.585% (or 390,195 people with ME/CFS in the UK based on the population size for 2022 as published in the paper; or 399,351 people if a prevalence rate of 0.585% is applied to the more recent UK population size of 68,265,200 in 2023).
Although estimates from elsewhere in the world are more recent – such as a report from the USA that identified a prevalence rate of 1.3% for self-reported CFS – these estimates are based on information from populations that are different from the UK in terms of the number of people in certain groups, such as age groups, and different ethnic groups.
This means that existing estimates of ME/CFS prevalence may not apply to the UK population today for several reasons.
1. Differences in population
There are differences in population structure – the types of people who make up a population, between countries, between different regions of the same country, and between different groups of participants in research studies. This can mean that extrapolating a prevalence estimate outside the location or population it was initially intended for may not be appropriate.
There are also natural changes in population size and structure over time – for example, in the UK the estimated population size in 2012 was 63.7 million, and in 2023 it was 68.3 million. As population size changes, the number of people with ME/CFS is also likely also change.
Although increases in population size may not necessarily change the prevalence (the proportion) of people with ME/CFS, we know that population size is affected by factors such as increased life expectancy, and migration.
These factors can mean that there are also changes in the structure or makeup of a population over time. For example, changes in the number of people of a certain age, the gender balance, and different ethnic groups.
As research suggests that ME/CFS is more common in certain age groups, in females, and in some ethnic groups than others, changes in these factors within population structure may impact the proportion of people with ME/CFS overall.
2. Differences in methods used to define or diagnose ME/CFS
There are many potential ways to identify people who have ME/CFS in a population to estimate the prevalence and each method has limitations.
Medical records
Although information such as hospital episode statistics (HES), or data from GP surgeries can be used to assess how many people have a recorded diagnosis of a disease – including ME/CFS, there are limitations:
- The exact notes made in medical records relating to ME/CFS may differ between hospitals and GP practices, by region, and by clinician.
- Currently in the UK, the medical coding system ICD-10 5th edition is used – in this, there is no diagnostic code specifically for “ME/CFS” – rather, as seen in the pre-print paper by Samms and Ponting, the ICD-10 code G93.3 for “post-viral fatigue” which includes “benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” is used. This means that the medical codes used in clinical practice may not accurately capture “ME/CFS” – or at the very least, the terminology used is inconsistent.
- Although there is a newer version of the coding system – ICD-11, which has the code 8E49 for “Post viral fatigue syndrome” – including both “chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis”, this is not yet being used in practice. In June 2024 NHS Digital stated that “It will become a mandated information standard for the NHS in England to replace ICD-10 in the next 5 years”.
- While this code may better reflect a diagnosis of “ME/CFS” it may further complicate comparisons of prevalence over time as those diagnosed with code G93.3 may not be directly comparable with those who are diagnosed with 8E49.
- It is also important to remember that the devolved nations – England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, have their own NHS structures – as such, coding practices for ME/CFS may differ between them.
- Although there is a newer version of the coding system – ICD-11, which has the code 8E49 for “Post viral fatigue syndrome” – including both “chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis”, this is not yet being used in practice. In June 2024 NHS Digital stated that “It will become a mandated information standard for the NHS in England to replace ICD-10 in the next 5 years”.
- There have been changes in guidelines for the diagnosis and management of ME/CFS in the UK – importantly, the symptoms required for a diagnosis of ME/CFS to be made before 2021 are different from those that are now required under the 2021 NICE guidelines.
- Notably, in comparison with the 2021 guidelines, the 2007 version did not require either cognitive difficulties or unrefreshing sleep for a diagnosis of ME/CFS to be made. The 2007 guidelines were also less clear about the requirement for the cardinal symptom of ME/CFS – post-exertional malaise (PEM).
- As it is unlikely that those who received a diagnosis of ME/CFS before 2021 have been reassessed under the new criteria, those with a diagnosis of ME/CFS before 2021 may not be comparable with those who received a diagnosis under the new guidelines.
- Medical records may also be limited due to the general hesitancy in approaching GPs due to the stigma associated with ME/CFS, the perceived disbelief amongst healthcare professionals, and the fact that to date there is no cure for the disease – in fact, these were all barriers to seeking a diagnosis identified in an Australian study published in 2022.
- There also appear to be some subgroups of the population, such as men with ME/CFS and ethnic minority groups who may be more hesitant to seek a diagnosis for the disease – or to experience greater delays in diagnosis and higher rates of misdiagnosis.
Application of ME/CFS diagnostic criteria
Research studies can also look at the number of people meeting specific ME/CFS diagnostic criteria in a population.
Several different criteria have been – and continue to be, used to diagnose “ME/CFS” including:
Criteria | Year | Disease | Purpose |
Fukuda criteria | 1994 | CFS | Research |
International Consensus Criteria (ICC) | 2011 | ME | Research and Clinical |
Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC) and Revised CCC | 2003 | ME/CFS | Research and Clinical |
Institute of Medicine criteria (IoM; now National Academy of Medicine) | 2015 | ME/CFS (recommended a name change to “systemic exertion intolerance disease”) | Clinical |
NICE ME/CFS Guideline | 2021 | ME/CFS | Clinical |
This means that even when considering the same population, estimates of ME/CFS prevalence differ depending on the criteria used. It is also the case that not all consider that certain diagnostic criteria actually diagnose the illness they purport to.
The multiplicity of criteria – both diagnostic and research – also affects comparisons between prevalence studies both in terms of the criteria used but also when studied as criteria evolve over time. For example, the aforementioned differences between the 2007 and 2021 NICE guidelines for the diagnosis and management of ME/CFS.
Self-reported ME/CFS
Studies can also consider the number of self-reported cases of ME/CFS. Whilst people who self-report may indeed have the disease, it is also important to remember that:
- People may report that they have the disease, but they may not meet diagnostic criteria if it were to be applied.
- People may report that they have been diagnosed with the disease in the past but they may not meet current diagnostic criteria.
- People may report not to have the disease, when if tested, they would meet diagnostic criteria.
It is important to note that research has suggested that prevalence estimated based on self-reported “CFS” is likely to be higher than estimates based on the number of people with ME/CFS diagnosed using detailed symptom-based criteria.
3. The Impact of COVID-19 and long COVID
Research suggests that the symptoms of long COVID and ME/CFS overlap – and evidence from the USA has suggested that the number of people self-reporting symptoms of ME/CFS has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, not everyone with long COVID meets the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS.
One study – which considered medical records in the USA – found that although the rate of developing ME/CFS following a COVID-19 infection was no higher than for other acute infectious illnesses at 3% to 4%, “given the millions of people infected with SARS-CoV-2” this would “still have a high societal burden”.
Another paper, using information from electronic health records in the USA between January 2020 and December 2023, found that in more than 3 million people, compared to people who had no record of COVID-19 infection, those with a record of COVID-19 had a 62% higher chance of receiving a diagnosis of “CFS” after a one-year follow-up period.
This means that it is likely that the prevalence of those whose symptoms meet ME/CFS diagnostic criteria – or who have a diagnosis of ME/CFS from a health professional, has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic – as suggested by research in the USA by Mirin and Jason.
However, updating the estimate for ME/CFS prevalence is not as simple as just adding those with long COVID who have a diagnosis of ME/CFS – or who in theory meet ME/CFS diagnostic criteria, to existing (pre-COVID) ME/CFS estimates – there is much more to think about.
For example, although ME/CFS symptoms can develop following a COVID-19 infection, without a validated diagnostic biomarker for ME/CFS – or indeed for long COVID, it is impossible to assess whether ME/CFS triggered by something other than long COVID (or the COVID-19 virus) is the same as ME/CFS which had a different onset.
Additionally, it is crucial to consider those whose symptoms of ME/CFS started during the COVID-19 pandemic but the onset was not the COVID-19 virus – it was, for example, another infection – such as the common cold, or indeed a stressful life event, which led to the reactivation of a latent virus they were exposed to earlier in life.
In the USA, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) long COVID definition, does not require a positive COVID test for a diagnosis of the condition to be made – additionally, this definition does not differentiate between long COVID and ME/CFS – rather, it states that ME/CFS is a “diagnosable condition” within long COVID.
Under the NASEM definition, since the COVID-19 pandemic anyone who has post-viral fatigue could be given a diagnosis of long COVID – which for many, the symptoms mimic those of ME/CFS, would be given.
In short, differentiating between ME/CFS and long COVID is complex, and at present it is unclear how clinicians are separating the two in practice – especially now the rates of testing to confirm a COVID-19 infection have decreased.
Summary
While estimates of the prevalence of ME/CFS exist, these are either not up to date – and/or are based on previous samples of the UK population, or they are more recent but reflect the prevalence in another country – such as the USA. As many factors change over time – and vary between countries (and different research studies), it is not always appropriate to directly compare estimates or to extrapolate figures to populations for which they were not intended/beyond that for which they were initially calculated.
In conclusion, without a validated diagnostic biomarker for ME/CFS, the diagnostic process for the disease will remain complex, and accurately capturing ME/CFS prevalence will remain an ongoing challenge for researchers.
What is prevalence? | Existing estimates | Additional information | Summary