Search results

Thank you.

Thanks, but I've got that one, @Dolphin, I'm looking for the Liverpool CFS service document mentioned in the previous few posts.

Does anyone have a copy of this document? The above link won't let me download.

ME Research Annual Report 2022 (published May 2023)

One of Sarah's main criticisms is on the purpose of the paper: What exactly is the take home message? What are the main results? I agree with her that this needs work. The paper is essentially an initial overview of the questionnaire respones and some 'association fishing', but people want clear...

I've just seen the first review, from Prof. Sarah Tyson, has been posted, and is a 'Not Approved'. There are some good points in there that I agree with, and some stuff I don't.

It's a sarcastic joke, based on the prevalent stereotype (at least in the late 80s/90s) of ME being an illness that afflicted only (or primarily) young professionals (yuppies), who were middle-class, socially mobile, with a well-paying job. So yes, I'm juxtaposing that stereotype with the result...

There is some information on the current situation with Scotland and the NICE guideline, here: https://meassociation.org.uk/medical-matters/items/nice-guideline-northern-ireland-scotland-wales/

I think he's saying (b), but I don't agree that's what we need.

I have added some tweets to that thread. I don't agree that we need hypothesis-driven proposals (quite the opposite—we have too many dispararte hypotheses in ME/CFS research, IMO). I also would like to know how many proposals the Morten group have submitted to MRC.

How very Texas.

Another possibility is that the means are estimated at T1 and T2 because the true means cannot be calculated due to dropouts (but they can be calculated at baseline). This is apparently what intention-to-treat analysis deals with.

This is the key part of the text explain the method to achieve the values in Table 3. It seems convoluted to me, and perhaps these numbers are 'modelled'. But, if this is the case, why not just use the actual values!

One question I have: the title says 'Estimated means and linear mixed model analyses....' What do they mean by this? Are they showing results from some extra modeling step? EDIT: And why are T1 and T2 means referred to as 'Estimated means', whereas the baseline value at T0 is just 'mean'...

If it's not too much trouble, @ME/CFS Skeptic, are you able to resend this image with the repeated SEs at T0 also highlighted. There is one instance. Cheers.

This is used to calculate the error on the between-group difference. The SE we have flagged are on individual groups (i.e., calculated before that stage), so this shouldn't matter.

I did think of doing the latter. I just don't want to take liberties.

Yep the SD would be 3.775 for CIS-fatigue in the CBT group (SE=0.5), much lower than 12.

No, we need more research on the biological basis of stress and its interaction with the immune system, particularly in the brain.

PS I would really like to know if the first point—about the repetitive standard error values in Table 3—can be explained, if there's anyone here with a good background in clinical stats...