Search results

Some recent posts in another thread reminded me of this paper. I'm suprised this has not been published yet. A tweet in the thread from the journalist who originally shared these snippets says "due to be published soon in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry." That appears...

"Our foundation supports nationally and internationally recognized research projects, non-profit organizations to support those affected and charity projects to combat diseases such as myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and related diseases. "We can build on a network...

Those damn yuppies!

Hello @sarahtyson. It's good to see you here. We don't have enough clinicians and researchers engaging with patients (here or elsewhere), in my opinion. A lot of good science and careful thought goes on on this forum. I hope this initial discussion isn't too overwhelming for you. Someone above...

I think this sort of thing—immune cell signalling, mediated by the brain—is probably my favourite candidate for a grand theory of ME. It could explain the brain issues/inflammation, immune dysregulation, peripheral nervous system involvement, and potentially link with cellular metabolism if...

There's a link to the data set at the end of the paper but it's currently dead (I assume it will go live when the paper is published). But I think it will be aggregate data.

How strange (also, quite ironic in this context).

I have a feeling she won't be answering questions on Twitter, especially this sort of technical stuff. I think this might be better included in correspondence.

It is strange that 'long covid' often gets translated to 'lung Covid' in Dutch. Why is that?

Naughty David leaving poor Anil on read! :(

OK. The error bars in this figure (Fig. 2) actually show the 95% confidence interval (mean ± 1.96 x SE). That's not what's stated in the caption for this figure. So that's an error, but a presentational one. What I don't understand is how you calculate an *overall* between-group difference from...

Is it not really weird that the standard errors were exactly the same for both groups for different outcome measures, often at T0, T1, and T2?!

That's true, and they haven't mentioned that (as far as I can tell), but the change is also very small and not significant.

What clearly matters most is the null hypothesis testing i.e. this: "Patients who received CBT were significantly less severely fatigued across follow-up assessments than patients receiving CAU (-8.8, (95% confidence interval (CI)) -11.9 to -5.8); P<0.001), representing a medium Cohen’s d...

Note that the confidence interval is sometimes given as +/- twice the standard error, not =/- twice the standard deviation. They may have plotted this, but this would still need correcting to say as much, and it doesn't explain why the error bars at T1 are different lengths despite the same...

I'm just looking at this now. It's all over the place. The lengths of the bars in Fig 2 do not even correspond to the values in Table 3. Happy to work with you on this to get this crap corrected or withdrawn.

I would like to know what the patient involvement looks like for this project. I assume this is via BACME.

This plot is objectively worse than those I used to make in GCSE I.T. when I was just learning Excel. Absolutely no care at all. Looks like shit. On a technical note, the error bars are somehow not lined up with the datapoints themselves. I'm not even sure how you'd manage that (maybe it's an...

Yes, this is essentially my observation too.