Six trials with a total of 494 patients were included in the review. All trials had crossover designs; four were RCTs and two were CCTs. All except one trial were considered to be high quality.
Fatigue: A meta-analysis of two high quality RCTs with waiting list control groups found that there were statistically significant benefits for patients undergoing energy conservation management on three Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS) subscales: cognitive (WMD -2.91, 95% CI -4.32 to -1.50), physical (WMD -2.99, 95% CI -4.47 to -1.52), and psychosocial (WMD -6.05, 95% CI -8.72 to -3.37). However, there were no significant differences for two different fatigue severity scores in two other trials between intervention and control groups. There was also evidence from a small high-quality CCT that scores on these scales and overall scores improved significantly more with energy conservation management than with a support group at eight weeks. There was no evidence that multi-disciplinary fatigue management programmes were more effective than placebo for any fatigue-related outcome at seven and 28 weeks follow-up. One trial evaluated participation and found no differences between intervention and control groups.
Quality-of-life: A meta-analysis of two trials found greater efficacy for energy conservation management than no treatment on three SF-36 subscale roles in the short term: physical role functioning (WMD 17.26, 95% CI 9.69 to 24.84), social functioning (WMD 6.91, 95% CI 1.32 to 12.49) and mental health (WMD 5.55, 95% CI 2.27 to 8.83). However, no difference was found for five other subscale roles: physical functioning, bodily pain, general health, vitality, and emotional role functioning.
There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity in any of the meta-analyses.