Search results

This is a fair point but I strongly suspect that the people in favor of the review who complained about the update process did not have to wait two weeks to obtain a response from Cochrane.

And neither has S4ME’s complaint.

I agree with this and I remember your published criticisms of the MetaBLIND study. However, as we have seen, the authors have not addressed your concerns and the study is still being cited. Even though this study may be flawed for the same reasons, and even though this may be quite unscientific...

It is strange to hear Nath say this when the intramural study group itself had a qualitative article on PEM describing its various aspects published a couple of years ago.

I am tagging @ME/CFS Skeptic @Brian Hughes @dave30th @Caroline Struthers @SNT Gatchaman @Jonathan Edwards @Tom Kindlon @Simon M as this is probably relevant to you for future letters to the editor and papers on bias. Edit: also relevant for the Cochrane review of exercise for CFS @Medfeb @Trish...

Compelling evidence from meta-epidemiological studies demonstrates overestimation of effects in randomized trials that fail to optimize randomization and blind patients and outcome assessors [A number of authors are from Gordon Guyatt’s group at McMaster University in Canada] Objective To...

Does anyone have news of the Covid-19 to ME/CFS conversion study that was supposedly launched in 2020? Also, has the LDN/Mestinon trial been registered?

The report notes that while no definitive biomarker has been identified for long Covid and that studies documenting biological abnormalities (in particular immunological ones) are limited by their heterogeneity, there are enough of them to conclude that there is an organic basis to long Covid...

On the downside, the report also calls for the same old “holistic” and “non dualistic” care model for long Covid centered around three pillars: a clinician MD (GP, internist, etc), a rehabilitation specialist such as a PT and psychological care (psychiatrist / psychologist). PEM is not mentioned...

Dr Stanton was among the co-authors / signatories of Prof Peter White’s position paper against the NICE ME/CFS guideline published in the JNNP (https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/early/2023/07/09/jnnp-2022-330463).

If you pen a response, you may be interested in pointing Prof Mariette to the new French official report on long Covid and post-infectious syndromes that I have tried to briefly summarize here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/news-from-france.18119/page-4#post-502432

The French Committee on the Monitoring and Anticipation of Health Risks (COVARS) just published an astonishing report on long Covid that was commissioned by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Research. Millions Missing France was one of the three patient associations that participated...

Copied from the News from France thread The French Committee on the Monitoring and Anticipation of Health Risks (COVARS) just published an astonishing report on long Covid that was commissioned by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Research. Millions Missing France was one of the three...

It should also be noted that if this is indeed how PEM was evaluated, then the authors cannot infer from it that patients who met the Fukuda criteria with PEM also met the NICE and IOM criteria for PEM, because the latter define PEM more stringently: Fukuda: However, confusingly, the algorithm...

Indeed. This goes to show that a risk of bias assessment should not be carried out by the same group of investigators that conducted the studies…

On second thought, since all but one of the studies used the Fukuda criteria with the four or greater symptom criterion, the authors can simply claim that the participants did have PEM at the time that they were recruited (and not retrospectively) based on their clinical assessment, i.e. whether...

The reference to Reeves 2003 possibly means that the trials from 2005 onwards used the revised “empirical definition”, which does not require PEM. They only require four or more symptoms from the Fukuda criteria as well as scoring higher than a certain threshold on the Multidimensional Fatigue...

All of the RCTs are from the same Dutch group (bolding mine in the quote below) and date from before 2015 except for one, so PEM was evaluated retrospectively. They all compared CBT to usual care or waiting list. The results of one of the more recent trial (2015) are not published; as for the...

This seems to be a meta-analysis of Dutch CBT trials, since the Dutch CBT protocol had to be followed for a trial to be included. In this case, most if not all of these trials did not evaluate PEM or did not evaluate it correctly.

It boggles my mind that this paper made it through peer review given the extreme selection bias at play and the clearly pseudoscientific, fantastic claims that it contains.