Search results

Reflecting a bit more on the useful German article. Not sure if this reason given by Cochrane makes sense. If they wanted to avoid controversy, they would not have offended Hilda - one of their founders with a large influence. Avoiding controversy would probably mean to take the middle...

Good that other people at Cochrane are interviewed about this. Perhaps that is something advocates can do: contact regional Cochrane offices or the people involved, piont to the problems with the ME/CFS review and ask if they could help?

Not sure, it's common to split evidence for adults versus children.

Not so sure because their concept of ME/CFS might differ and be more inclusive than ours. I've heard some interesting stories from ME/CFS patients in Belgium. In the early 2000s that country financed CFS centres where patients were treated with GET/CBT. You had to meet CFS criteria (Fukuda) in...

What about the argument that strictly defined ME/CFS with clear PEM would have been more likely to have shown adverse effects in GET/CBT trials. That might overshadow any positive results and explain why the BPS people preferred to focus on broad criteria with unexplained fatigue. As Jonathan...

There are a couple of studies that looked at people referred to specialist centres with a suspicion of ME/CFS and around 50% did not meet ME/CFS criteria (it did not seem like solely a problem of the criteria). The non-ME/CFS group included conditions like depression, sleep disorders...

The authors have published a rapid response yesterday: https://www.bmj.com/content/387/bmj-2024-081318/rapid-responses Very disappointing and ignores the point about imprecision.

Thanks!

In which thread did he say this? Don't think I agree with this statement.

Thanks! I've forgotten we had access to his response. Re-reading this a couple of years later, it seems his reply was quite unhelpful. His advice to dichotomise a continuous measure and then rating the certainty of a non-zero effect seems to go against basic statistical principles. Zero is not...

Yes I think the authors of the individual trials being included is a recognition for their data being used. The fact that Galsziou was senior author is more surprising. I hope he wasn't involved in the decisions about the update and its cancellation because as senior author he clearly was an...

anyone has the text of guyatts reply?

They simply measured ME/CFS-like symptoms" Yes agree, and it should have been done in the two studies you are reporting on!

His main arguments seem to be that recruitment was biased towards ME Association members or people affiliated with it and that it did not include patients who have recovered. But even if this was only a subgroup who had bad experiences with current services, it would be cause of concern (e.g...

Got the same impression when looking into psychosomatic theory for other diseases. It was usually presented as a progressive view and contrasted with genetic determinism. People like Kubler-Ross and Bettelheim believed that patients with schizophrenia/autism had no biological abnormalities...

Yes but even in this area it does not look impressive. The RECOVER study on ME/CFS post-covid did not include medical examinations so it was worse than the EBV studies we have.

Isn't that what happened in the US with the Long Covid money?

Quote from the retraction watch article: Back in 2019, we made an overview of guidelines and policies that referred to the GET review here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-influence-of-the-cochrane-review-on-get.11768/

Where did this funding come from? Was it a government grant that they lost or simply overall budget cuts?

Any articles on this because it seems like a strange decision.