Search results

True, this is specified later in the blog and Twitter thread but was difficult to include in the title. Yes, good point. I remember people posting studies where the text included sentences of the prompting or an introduction such as: 'Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic'...

New blog post about fraud and research misconduct in scientific research. https://mecfsskeptic.com/how-many-scientific-papers-are-fake/ Twitter summary: 1) How many scientific papers are fake? A new review argues that fabrication and falsification of scientific results may be more common...

Was only able to briefly skim the protocol but I think it looks good and addresses most of the problems raised with the Larun et al. 2019 version. For example, it includes objective outcomes and reports of harm from non-randomized studies. A (minor) point of critique is that it overstates the...

The diagnoses of CFS and fibromyalgia were self-reported: At the start of the study, 1.4% of the 9132 participants reported chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia.

Abstract Background: Individuals living with chronic conditions (CC) typically have a higher risk of more severe outcomes when exposed to infection. Although many studies have investigated the relationship between CCs and COVID-19 severity, they are generally limited to clinical or hospitalized...

There are other (better) studies on health-related quality of life in ME/CFS but I suspect these were excluded because they used the Fukuda-definition. Perhaps this review is a good example of why excluding studies that did not require PEM is not always a good idea?

Thanks for that overview @Murph Had a quick look at the trials and this looks like the major phase III trial published in 2019 in the NEjM: Elexacaftor–Tezacaftor–Ivacaftor for Cystic Fibrosis with a Single Phe508del Allele | New England Journal of Medicine The primary endpoint was much air a...

Old and small study but interesting: Black CD, McCully KK. Time course of exercise induced alterations in daily activity in chronic fatigue syndrome. Dynamic medicine. 2005 Dec;4:1-2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16255779/

Agree with this. I wonder if researchers could simply do a very low intensity activity and monitor patients and controls over time for differences. Perhaps this could even be done on an exercise bike. Then taking blood samples every 10 minutes to test various parameters such as lactate. It's a...

On the other hand, if revision within 20 days is perfectly possible, it is quite incredible that some authors have to wait many months or even more than a year before getting a response from editors.

But first the editor has to view the manuscript, decide if it should go out for peer review or if it is a desk rejection. Then he should find peer reviewers, some might not respond or refuse. Then if you do your peer review within 48 hours, it still needs to go back to the editor who might wait...

For me it's hard to see why this approach would makes sense for journals and scientists unless it involves lowering standards for publication.

There is currently a special issue on ME/CFS in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences (MDPI) titled: 'Advances in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), 2nd Edition'. IJMS | Special Issue : Advances in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS)...

Special issue in scientific journals focus on a particular topic and often have guest editors. They might provide an opportunity to publish papers on things that usually aren't popular or don't get much attention. There was, for example, a special issue in the journal Healthcare (MDPI) on...

Was able to read the paper today (it is now open-access) and it seems that Sid suspicion was right: this is a post-hoc subgroup analysis because the original analysis found no effect. The authors write:

Noticed some inconsistencies for this paper compared to the trial registration: Study Details | Effectiveness of VIRTUAL SFCAMINA STUDY | ClinicalTrials.gov The registration said that they would use "the Fukuda and Holmes classification criteria for Fatigue Syndrome Chronicle" as inclusion...

Something different: On the Retraction Watch article on the Cochrane review, I noticed this comment: I wonder if this is Meredith Warshaw Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard School of Public Health ‪Meredith Warshaw‬ - ‪Google Scholar‬

If I recall correctly the planned update did not require a note with a new DOI. So it's rather strange to argue that they wanted a new citation to highlight the cancellation of the update.

The paper says they added multiple factors in the statistical model which weren't mentioned in the protocol: The protocol says they would correct for the false discovery rate (FDR): But I don't see this in the paper.

Had a look at the protocol which said: So 50m was originally viewed as the minimum important difference? Reference 14 is: Minimum clinically important improvement for the incremental shuttle walking test | Thorax Which says: