Search results

A lot of the published research on genetics uses the CDC’s so-called “empiric” criteria (Reeves et al. , 2005) which are really rubbish and for example include a lot of people with major depressive disorder and not CFS.

With regard to depression, I think there are conflicting findings from prospective studies. I also think a big issue with prospective studies in the field is that it often takes a long time to get diagnosed. So it is claimed somebody had depression before they got ME or a CFS when really they...

Just to be rigourous: the Cochrane review didn't report objective outcomes; this wording gives the impression it did.

Yes this is pretty shocking.

There is pretty much no way these figures are for metres. I presume instead they are for feet. The equivalent numbers in metres are: 407 and 401. Comment: this is not a criticism of the Vink paper

Yes, indeed. If Laurun et al had reported on objective outcome measures this would have shown up in the Cochrane review.

99% sure it isn’t. That’s an English rather than Scottish accent. Also I remember it being released before, I think last May.

Yes, the paper itself is not clear on this. But it is not impossible to use both bimodal scoring and Likert scoring for the Chalder fatigue scale in the same paper. For example, initially with the PACE Trial protocol, the primary outcome measure used bimodal scoring, but then there was a...

I haven’t followed this thread. But I just thought I would point out that a lot of the focus of the judicial review of the last NICE guidelines was on the make-up of the committee. I wonder whether anything can be used or learnt from that.

Sometimes people talk as if it is some sort of scandal that a lot of the money that has been raised for research has been raised privately. But there are lots of conditions where a lot is raised privately and with some conditions the amount raised privately is multiples of what is raised...

Full research papers will generally mention any funding sources. I have seen lots mention specific NIH grant numbers. It’s not something I’m suspicious about.

I got it from @Adrian .

Yes indeed. When someone said they could see the comment the other day, I had to ask them for the link as I had used the same method as you and couldn't see it.

This is the original link I saw it at and it is still there: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/media/CDSR/CD003200/CD003200.pdf

Yes, but the Wearden et al. (1998) extract you quote doesn't say whether the threshold of 4 more is based on bimodal scoring (0-14) or Likert scoring (0-42) while your paper says it refers to Likert scoring/0-42. It doesn't make much sense to use 4 as a threshold for Likert scoring as healthy...

The only concrete action that is known about now is that the following note that has been added to the review:

We don’t know. As with most trials, we don’t have the individual data. Though we do have it for the FINE Trial (Wearden et al. 2010) and the PACE Trial (White et al., 2011).