Search results

I criticised this point about a lower placebo response reported in that paper in this thread: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/placebo-response-in-the-treatment-of-cfs-systematic-review-meta-analysis-cho-et-al-2005.46408/

I wonder how interesting it is that the protocol-driven feedback didn't do better and indeed on the SF 36 physical functioning subscale, only the feedback on demand group was statistically better than the waiting list group (i.e. the protocol-driven feedback group wasn't).

A bit disappointing they don't calculate the DALYs considering they have the data. But then they don't even give the results for the EQ-6D unless they are going to be in another paper.

Not alone are participants with CFS told not to sleep during the day but they shouldn't lie down!

It's not really that tailored:

I find it a little odd that they don't do a sensitivity analysis where the 6 who do not satisfy the CDC criteria are excluded.

To put the actometer results in some context:

What prompted me to look at this was the Twisk & Corsius paper. They seem to say different things at different stages. but

Some comorbidities like fibromyalgia are not listed. I imagine some of the patients did have such comorbidities in which case the comorbidity rate is higher than 23%. Also this use dthe CDC criteria so some of the initial sample probably had comorbidities but were excluded from the research...

I think this is the only outcome measure that could be referred to for this point within these 5 trials: There could have been individuals who deteriorated in the trials but I don't believe such data was published. There is some evidence from surveys that some people report being made worse by CBT.

I don't think this is a strong point with these data. The dropout figures are given in table 1 and similar between the intervention and control groups.

They are talking about the average scores. Probably some individuals did reach "normal levels", indeed we know some did in Knoop et al, 2007.

I believe there is a small error here. It should see a score of 60 or more not 61. They are talking about PACE Trial.

When I initially read this I thought that the SIP8 criterion <=203 was part of the definition of full recovery. However looking back on it again I think maybe it is not included (and that if it was used the figure for full recovery might be lower). If one looks at the group of those with...

Psychother Psychosom. 2007;76(3):171-6. Is a full recovery possible after cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome? Knoop H1, Bleijenberg G, Gielissen MF, van der Meer JW, White PD. Author information Abstract BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for chronic fatigue...

Good to see the Knoop et al., 2007 full recovery paper being criticised.

Note that this is from around a decade ago.

This is a Dutch study. I doubt there is any connection.

Here are the 12 areas they asked about: If they had asked about other symptoms, other things may have come up higher than the 3 they highlighted

99.4% of those classified as having CFS reported postexertional malaise. However 53.9% of those who were not classified as having CFS also reported the symptom. This figure for controls seems very high and makes me question the validity of whatever question was used. They may have translated...