Search results

Tried to make some plots with dotted lines showing the trajectory of participants: I don't think that the participants who had a workload of 0 were excluded (there was one at CPET1 and 5 at CPET2).

The raw data that they posted includes two datasets (separate sheets in Excel) but I don't see how these can be linked. Both have 68 rows, so I assumed this were from the same participants and we could just bind the columns. But the sex columns from both sheets do not match suggesting that...

Another issue is the a higher number of missing values. Was looking at VO2 at VT1. 29 out of 68 (43%) of participants had missing data at either CPET1 or CPET 2.

Thanks for the explanation! So it's possible that a critique in Matters Arising - Nature Comms, is still in the pipeline? Perhaps somebody could write to the editors at Nature Comms to ask about this? If it got rejected after peer review, it would be interested to know what the critique said...

Despite all the talk about PEM/PESE, it seems that they did not measure this symptom (in contrast to many other Long Covid symptoms)?

Sounds interesting.

Bit unfortunate though that the commentary was not published in the original journal and that Walitt et al. were not urged to respond to it. I thought this was the original plan: is it possible to give some background on what happened? Did the journal reject it?

Overall, the differences between the two groups do not look very large.

Discussed here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/use-of-eefrt-in-the-nih-study-deep-phenotyping-of-pi-me-cfs-2024-walitt-et-al.37463/post-519299

Great work, thanks to all authors!

The intervention also consists of only 2 sessions. I wonder if people who truly believe in mind-body recovery programs are frustrated by papers like this or is it really anything goes...

There are millions of people in chronic pain while shootings like the one by Mangione almost never happen. So I don't think there is a strong connection here.

The effect sizes they report in the abstract (around half a standard deviation for fatigue) are inflated by including the Qiqong trials. For short-term fatigue, for example, the PACE trial found an effect closer to 0.2 instead of 0.5 SD. The same for other outcomes.

They included 4 Chinese trials of Qigong exercise and 1 of isometric yoga. Also included are the GETSET trial (Clark 2017), the PACE trial (White 2011), a very small (n = 14) Australian trial comparing two types of exercise (Sandler 2011), and the Spanish trial by Nunez et al that combined GET...

Just read the full text and it is great to see the methodological quality of the study. They used blinding, randomization, pre-registration of the analysis plan. They graphs are clear, the statistical models are reported explicitly, there's a good overview of potential limitations. No long...

Sad that that this paper couldn't find the same result of 'something in the blood' but good that they checked anyway.

Don't think so after a quick look, but hope to have a closer look towards the end of the year.

This publication is only on male ME/CFS patients. An earlier paper contained the data on female ME/CFS patients: Giloteaux L, Glass KA, Germain A, Franconi CJ, Zhang S, Hanson MR. Dysregulation of extracellular vesicle protein cargo in female myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome...

I try to follow ME/CFS research as closely as I can and sometimes write blogs about them. For example, at the end of the year I write an overview of the most interesting studies of the year, which helps to keep track of the most important ones...

Only read the abstract but sounds like an impressie difference.