Search results

The biggest differences for the NMR-metabolites seem to involve high-density lipoprotein (HDL), which also pops up in the proteomics above and in the blood where for example hdl_cholesterol and apolipoprotein_a were reduced.

Trying to have another look at this paper. For the proteomics, the following seem to be the values that stand out most. I've extracted the following values from the data (Using direct effects). Name(abbreviation), cohen_d_raw_data, z_value_modelled, corrected_p_value Males...

Thanks @Braganca What happens if you feed it the blood, metabolites and proteomics measures that were abnormal in the recent Beentjes et al. study? What would it then give as an explanation for these findings. For example these were all increased in ME/CFS patients compared to controls: 1...

No, I think that was Wallman 2004. The Powell 2001 trial used the same intervention as FITNET.

Also had a look at treatments that received more than 20% negatives response and had more than 100 respondents. It's quite remarkable how much worse GET is viewed compared to strong medications with notable side-effects such as Abilify, antidepressants such as Amitriptyline, SSRIs, and Trazodone...

Found it quite interesting that ME/CFS and Long Covid patients rated treatments very similarly (although Long Covid patients were a bit more positive about the treatments throughout, hence why the bubbles are slightly above the line).

One caveat is that PACE is not really the trial that is driving the effect in the meta-analysis (it often found lower effects than the meta-analysis estimates). It's mainly the 2001 Powell et al. study that inflated the effects.

No don't think so but it took a while before it was up on the BMJ website. Maybe there is now also a delay because of the holidays?

Agree, strange that there is such a lage gap in the patient group. The relationship between both variables also looks very strong in the ME/CFS patients.

So the 2019 version that I had, that was published shortly after the amendment says (my bolding): While the 2019 version that is now on the Cochrane website says (my bolding): So It seems that they have the exact same DOI and citation but that there are (at least) two versions: one from 2019...

Thanks for providing this overview. Not sure if you took this into account but I suspect that sequence A in the supplementary material means 'Treatment' at any timepoint rather than the group that first got treatment and then placebo. Otherwise it would not match with the results they report...

Yes I found this confusing. For the 2017 Apr 25 update they mention revisions from 2017 May 05, all the way up to 2019 Jun 17. This seems like an error because all these changes came after the April 2017 update? And for the 2019 Oct 02 update the revision dates go from 2020 Feb 06 to 2021...

Wasn't there some rule that if a review is substantially out of date, the editors can put a warning sign to it? Like they did with the 2008 review of CBT for ME/CFS. It says: https://www.cochrane.org/CD001027/DEPRESSN_cognitive-behaviour-therapy-chronic-fatigue-syndrome The Larun et al. review...

In the protocol they state it a bit clearer:

I also have a 2019 version that does not include the editorial note with a link to the update process, even though it includes all the rest of the version history, all the way back to 2004. The latest update mentioned is this:

Thanks, this suggests that @Medfeb is right and that they combined the amendment and editorial note in the previous update. So the new publication for the editorial note might be standard practice and not intentional but I think it is still quite misleading.

Does it include the editorial notes?

That's possible but in the 2019 version I had stored, I can't find the editorial note. And in the version history it is dated at February 6 2020: It's a bit confusing because the version history does not mentioned the new 2019 review and changes made to it. EDIT: perhaps someone could download...

Haven't read the full paper yet but noticed this: The difference between groups was 9.2 (95% CI, 4.3-14.2).

Wyller is also the senior author of this paper.