Search results

Thanks for pointing that out, was indeed misinterpreting the graphs. Given that the PASC-ME/CFS cases seem to be similar to other ME/CFS cases, it indeed suggests a doubling of new cases in that period because of Long Covid. The PASC-ME/CFS cases, however, already seems to decrease from the...

The 6 minute walking distance seem to have increased with 53.8 meters in the intervention group and 19.2 meters in the control group. So the difference is around 35 meters, which is around the minimal important difference and similar to what recent Long Covid exercise trials found, for example...

Data came from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a collection of EHR data from 83 health partners representing 21.7 million patients. But there were only 5781 cases in this dataset. That's like a prevalence of 0.027% which seems very low. In comparison, the R53.82 group...

The ME/CFS cases do not seem to have increased much or am I reading the figures incorrectly? The rest of the paper focuses mostly on their machine learning algorithm that tries to model ME/CFS and compare it to Long Covid.

ME/CFS was defined like this: Figure shows the number of ME/CFS and Long Covid cases over time in the health records:

It seems that the people who sell and promote these brain retraining courses rarely hold a medical degree or have a scientific background. Phil Parker (lightning process) – osteopath Miguel Bautista (CFS recovery) – personal trainer Raelan Agle (Brain Retraining 101) - social work degree Ashok...

I think I know which one you mean: 'ME/CFS & Long Covid Recovery, Support, & Inspiration'. It does include a lot of people enthusiastic about these brain retraining programs. The moderators however, seem to have conflict of interest for selling courses for these programs and often do not have...

903 out of a million is 0.09% so really low.

What is the reasoning or argument behind this? Why should we not be surprised?

The also claim significant effects for hand grip and quality of life but they tested so many variables (including VO2 peak and fatigue severity, which showed no effect) and did not control for multiple testing. The trial design was also A versus A + B, with the control group receiving no...

MCID estimates are a bit imprecise and vague, so not arguing that one is necessarily better than the other. But it seemed that they changed their MCID choice after seeing the data, without explaining this in their paper. The correct way would probably to argue that their result may or may not...

Similar to a previous exercise study found an effect of 36.4 meter on the primary outcome the incremental shuttle walk test. They argue that "The effect size exceeded the minimum clinically important difference of 35.0 m [13]" But in the power calculation in their protocol, they used a minimal...

Now published, see post #9 -------------------------------------------- Abstract Long COVID, reflected by persistent symptoms, including breathlessness and fatigue, after coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) infection, presents an unmet therapeutic need. In this study, the effects of a resistance...

Here's the data on the cortical thickness of the brain areas they tested in both groups:

Which is much lower than the 50% that some advocates use (often based on the flawed review linked below): https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-persistence-of-me-cfs-after-sars-cov-2-infection-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-2024-dehlia-et-al.40426/#post-556430

Looked at some of these studies like Li 2022 or Romanet 2023 and they focused on patients discharged from hospital with pulmonary problems so quite different from the ME/CFS subtype of Long Covid.

Don't quite understand what you mean by this? Isn't the problem simply that these trials did not include a non-exercise control group (and thus cannot estimate the effect of exercise)?

Could you give an example?

Cognitive symptoms are one of the required symptoms in many ME/CFS case definitions, so this seems like a circular argument.

There is a new comment by Lillebeth Larun, the primary author: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub9/detailed-comment/en?messageId=451624933