Search results

Everytime I remind myself of the history I get more appalled by it. So frustrating.

Think there's a typo there, and you meant that Cochrane had a Traditional Chinese Medicine review for CFS, rather than the review on GET?

The first video has over 52k views now. Go vloggers!

Sounds like I misunderstood you... I'm not feeling up to understanding things in this heat!

Oh - I thought it was that the change resulting from treatment (so requiring a control group comparison) was substantial enough to mean the treatment was seen as worthwhile. If it's not assessed on the basis of a difference between arms then isn't that more worrying? Thinking back, that PACE...

I can't remember that part of the discussion now, but could it be that they had fewer trials with HADS as an outcome, and that affected the rating? On the assumption that the more garbage you get in the better?

The MCID thing often seems misused to me. If patients give their views on MCID on the assumption that the questionnaire scoring will not be affected by potential biases due to rigorous research methods (double-blind, etc), and then this MCID is used to hype the results of trivial differences...

To me this looks like Cochrane head office are fighting to get the authors to do the bare minimum, just to avoid embarrassing Cochrane. But letting the authors get away with what is remotely 'defensible' is still going to be really harmful. This whole process looks completely broken to me.

Thanks to Tuller for keeping drawing attention to these things. Surely the SMILE trial is full of enough nonsense and falsehood for even the BMJ to realise it needs to be retracted?

Thanks for posting. The NICE stuff doesn't sound particularly positive.

Thanks. Is there a particularly important implication to this for us to understand that I've missed, or are you just keeping people updated?

Thanks.

I hope this nanoneedle works out or else I fear it could be quite unhelpful... given the series of false leads there have been around CFS I'd want to be more cautious until we had independent replication, particularly as I don't see much cost to being extra cautious.

I've not looked at this paper beyond the abstract, and am personally a bit suspicious of this method for showing anything of value, but presumably this finding is useful for challenging those who imply Moss-Morris's work is useful for indicating attentional bias plays a role in causing the...

I have a vague memory that the student doing this has autism and CFS? This could be wrong and I've no idea where I saw that, but thought I'd mention it anyway.

Looks like this has been up since at least 2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20150920030637/https://www.royalfree.nhs.uk/services/services-a-z/fatigue-service/cfs-me-research/

It wasn't released in a form that allows it to be combined with the already publicly available data.

Good luck with everything Alex. Sorry it's so rubbish.

Of there was a bit of a stand-off, and then they gave in to Larun.

I didn't expect them to publish commentaries at the same time as publishing this paper. I'd assumed that they'd put submitted commentaries through some sort of review process which would take sometime.