Search results

Does anyone have access to the 2024 version? Am I correct to think that the latest search of the literature took place in May 2014, so more than 10 years ago?

I don't know what is standard practice at Cochrane but it does seem that previous editorial notes did not result in a new publication of the entire review. For example the previous note about the update in 2020, did not result in a new version.

Looking at the version history: does seem like it was just about the editorial note as @Yann04 said:

The comments are still there from what I can see, so linked to the 2024 version. You mean this one? I think it is rather confusing to republish the review if nothing else changed. On Pubmed for example, you don't see the note so people will likely think that the review received an update in 2024.

Why did they republish this review? Was something changed to this version?

Assuming that the text is correct and sequence A got placebo at visit 8, then it is strange that it outperformed sequence B (which received treatment) after the crossover on the Bell scale. Here's a visualisation of that. After crossover the placebo group seem to have performed better? This...

The text is rather confusing. They write: 'Sequence A received 1350 mg BC007 followed by placebo, sequence B received placebo, followed by 1350 mg BC007.' But then they start comparing the sequences ("no statistically significant differences between sequence A und sequence B were observed")...

The email by Cochrane to the authors states states: Would be interesting to read what was said and what the arguments agains the new review were. Would this be possible to request using FOI?

The primary outcome of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was as follows: So although the difference was not statistically significant (due to low sample size and rate of events), there were more than twice as many adverse events in the intervention than in the control group. If I...

Before 2019 ME/CFS patients simply pointed out problems with the Larun et al. review and asked for these to be corrected or withdrawn. As far as I can remember it was Cochrane itself that came with the initiative of writing a new review using a new protocol. Here's what they said in 2019: So...

The paper says:

They don't seem to report any between group difference and tests, only within groups? That approach is usually a sign that the results were not what they wanted them to be...

I assumed nobody would take these results seriously as indicating a real effect but Suzanne Vernon wrote on the Bateman Horne clinic website: https://batemanhornecenter.org/promising-clinical-trials/

Yates's correction for continuityQuite a few patients scored a value of 0 at baseline or follow-up which seems weird given that these were the completer's analysis, so 0 doesn't indicate missing data. The abstract writes: 'A greater proportion of subjects in the oxaloacetate group achieved a...

The intervention arm included dietary advice and symptom-contingent exercise. They write: "A symptom-titrated pacing strategy was implemented to account for exercise intolerance or PEM." The control group received standard physiotherapy. Unfortunately, it seems that there were no significant...

Had a look at the data and the group difference was 0.81 [95% confidence interval: -1.32 to 2.94], with a t-test p-value of 0.449. The cohen d effect size is 0.19 [-0.30, 0.68]. So nothing to see here unfortunately.

'a gradual increase in activity helps people recover.' 'This new research provides evidence for treatments that will help people recover, and is consistent with the approach the Oslo Networks understanding of these conditions.' Signed by Paul Garner who was one of the authors of the BMJ review.

It seems to highlight similar problems as ours: Hoping that the editors take notice.

I interpreted the statement as highlighting current problems with ME/CFS case definitions, so more a starting point for discussion than a specific proposal on how things should be. I think the required impairment for ME/CFS diagnosis, definition of PEM, and exclusionary conditions are good...

The MCAM did test their methods first to check if it correlated with the gold standard of chromium-51 release tested on whole blood on the same day. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33819446/