Search results

You're obviously much more knowledgeable than I am re this. At a simple level you can switch questionnaires for actimetry/actimetry* but I guess it's not that simple for other indicators/symptoms. *Noticed this review of actimetry (electronic activity monitoring) versus questionnaires...

Yea the standard approach if a techniques is flawed (questionnaires) is to design it out. OK there may be some things you can't easily measure but is a poor method (questionnaires) better than nothing?

And it can be measured - see @Hutan post - so a testable hypothesis?

Bear in mind that these autoantibody tests are notoriously unreliable. There's a thread here re a new technique which should result in better autoantibody tests https://www.s4me.info/threads/reap-a-platform-to-identify-autoantibodies-that-target-the-human-exoproteome-2021-wang-et-al.20747/ more...

I'm guessing a good lawyer/barrister makes sure a discussion focuses on material which benefits their case - if that is the case then are the Royal College of Physicians out on a limb here? See @Jonathan Edwards comments here* it seems that the Royal College of Physicians is focusing attention...

I suspect it would be difficult to use the 2007 Guidelines now i.e. since the evidence no longer supports the intervention (CBT/GET). If a health care provider is sued for damages, re treatment provided after the draft Guidelines were published [November 2020], then they'd have to demonstrate...

I think one of the challenges will be to try to manage the optics --- Royal College of Physicians will have to back down from their currently untenable position --- I'm not sure what you can give them --- suggestions welcome! There's a good synopsis of the problem here [Prof Hughes] - sorry for...

@Jonathan Edwards these folks seems to be conspiring to create the public interest for you to publish that book --- are you orchestrating this debacle...

I've analysed the responses to a few policy consultations (I work at a very junior level in planning policy in a UK devolved administration). These guys [Paul Garner — Lynne Turner Stokes] or whoever needed to make a reasonable rebuttal of the evidence and thereby the conclusions in the draft...

Yea he's ignoring the fact that in illness like Alzheimers there are no diagnostic tests or treatments (think that's still true in the UK) and that the answer is research e.g. GWAS. It's not a case of sticking with things we know don't work - there are options i.e. research. OK research doesn't...

There's a bit of me agrees with @Jonathan Edwards * if the medical profession do refuse to endorse this then it may simply highlight this fiasco [hope I'm not misinterpreting your statement Jonathan*]...

Just posted this* on the Times site. It may look familiar to you @Jonathan Edwards @Michiel Tack Must remember to cancel the subscription before they charge me! *"If it was well known that there is no other measure why did PACE set up actometry and abandon it when a Dutch study failed to show...

I didn't know there was a "Dutch study failed to show a positive" - could someone send m a link? Also, is someone responding to the Times article? @Michiel Tack @Jonathan Edwards - I guess you guys are busy, hope you don't mind the tag.

@Andy just wondering if anyone is planning to respond to the article in the Times? More generally are you guys planning on responding to these type of articles over the next few days?

Re the neurologist quoted in the Times Send in the clowns - or, in this case, the neurologist --- "some people find them helpful" --- great qualified support - I can find 1 person who found it helpful therefore the statement is correct! "I don't think the voices of patients have been heard" ---...

It's been running through my mind that the draft NICE Guidelines represent a positive development for NICE. I.e. NICE finding it's way back to its original founding principles - don't be distracted by the lobby/vested interests --- decide on the basis of the evidence --- Well it looks as if...

If you check out the NIHR funding awards you'll see that this study* was awarded £150K [https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR200509]. Start date was "February 2020" but I haven't found the award date. Any idea how to find the award date? There's a brief thread on this award here**...

Yea, and the draft NICE Guidelines were published in November last year, so much for the Secretary of State [AKA - Minister] for Health and Social Care reassurance (in June this year) that there was a "robust peer review processes"* in place. So robust in fact that they awarded this grant...

Yip this rings true "The benefit, surely, is in getting difficult patients out of the door" @Jonathan Edwards pointed out that this was an attraction of the current NICE Guidance -- somewhere to refer patients to. The second part "having someone else persuade them that, if they don't improve...

From a practical perspective the BPS mob don't seem to be able to bring anything to the game/issue. If you objectively measure the baseline and the post intervention outcome [CBT/GET ---] then the intervention hasn't improved peoples health i.e. in terms of getting them back to their healthy...