Search results

As I understand it, it's used for pulmonary rehabilitation and respiratory status studies. I don't know if the MCID would depend on the specific diagnosis, but maybe so. The other MCID studies were for related conditions. They obviously picked the most favorable. I don't know if it's different...

There must be some sort of ethics guidance in NZ that governs this and specifically outlines what the distinction is and what qualifies as an "audit." I'm not sure if the three items outlined in the previous Arroll article are the prevailing, but certainly it doesn't sound like "auditing"...

Audit seems like "service evaluation," which is different from research and doesn't require ethical approval. But service evaluation, at least in UK health research, is defined as analysis of anonymous databases to see if service benchmarks were met. No conclusions or anything beyond that is...

good point.

It can vary greatly between individuals and also based on when the infection occurred. Seronegatively should not lead to an automatic assumption that the person did not have COVID-19.

And I can certainly see why Denmark needs California for national and international security purposes

I'm all in!!!

Oops! Bummer. Sharp eye! Hopefully only you will have noticed that. I'll fix in the next iteration. actually, perhaps California will secede and join the UK, under the circumstances, in which case it would be correct. ADDED: Actually, I fixed it in the post. I figured it's a typo rather than...

I decided to adopt the style of journals, which don't generally include degrees and job titles in authors' signings. I found that some people are ok with just their main degree, and others want every degree and licensing whatever. It's too complicated for me to keep track of and too easy to make...

yeah, my thoguht was that in a few weeks I'd resend and repost with more signatories and also organizations signed on. That's what I did with Lancet letter and the letter to NICE. The subsequent versions of those each had more than 100 individuals and almost as many groups, whether patient...

I hadn't thought of that. it's really a way to get attention for the issue rather than to really force a change, since it is likely they will just ignore it. I assume they would also ignore it if sent to "complaints" or any other department. Whether they take notice of it or not, the main goal...

Hard to know. I don't think the letter will move them. It will just help add to the pressure over the issue.

https://virology.ws/2025/02/20/trial-by-error-a-letter-to-cochranes-editor-in-chief/

She said it was based on out-dated questions and an outdated understanding of the disease. She also said it clearly wouldn't resolve all the questions. That seems to be a pretty clear statement that it is not "fit for purpose." If it were fit for purpose, why commission another one? Having said...

In the CODES trial for "functional seizures," they had null results for their primary outcome of seizure reduction. They claimed success anyway on the basis of some vague secondary outcomes and said seizure reduction was not the right primary outcome anyway, even though they had promoted that as...

it was just a way of separating the disclaimer from the post. I could have used xxxxx or **** like I do within a post. maybe I should figure out some other symbol? I decided I should probably have the disclaimer on each post.

insane.

yeah it’s all very scary from the inside view.

I highlighted that article in this post: https://virology.ws/2025/02/14/some-things-ive-read-recently-in-stat-the-sick-times-van-der-zees-blog/

isn't he referring to the gas exchange ratio and other measurements at VO2 Max?