Search results

Explanation by analogy. It is a hypothesis, nothing more.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I agree, there is no tested model of central sensitisation, just an accumulation of (often equivocal) correlations.

It could be an indirect measure of motivation during exercise testing, I wonder if an increase (eg more effort from baseline) in Borg score at 52 weeks is associated with an increase in 6MWD at 52 weeks?

There is a review in Psychology Today that summarises it. There is also a review here (and extra followup on the blog): https://holeousia.com/2019/05/24/a-review-the-medical-model-in-mental-health/ https://holeousia.com/2019/06/12/alienists/

The Borg scale is a relative scale which patients rate intensity of effort during an exercise test. It is meaningless to compare scores between patients, or between exercise tests for the same patient if the gap is more than about a day. Participants rating lower peak Borg scores doesn't...

How much do you want to wager?

It only worked for me using a US VPN.

Your personal experience? :p The underlying problem is that they did not provide what they said they would provide in the protocol. Even if they sufficiently justified the change in the manuscript (they didn't), I don't think the manuscript should have passed peer review without at least...

What happens if they decide to do an unblinded trial with self-report outcome measures?

The logical conclusion is that a score of 4 or more on the Chalder Fatigue Scale is not a specific predictor of CFS. (Note that Chalder reported the cutoff score of 3 or less as indicative of "normal" fatigue using bimodal scoring, not Likert scoring.) Anyone who has actually looked at the...

I wonder what this means? I don't have access to the article yet...

I guess we'll have to assume that IRB had granted ethics approval? I'm not sure how the stair climbing test and six minute walking test are relevant to those groups of patients.

The young man pictured is of course a stock photo. The testimonial doesn't sound quite like anything anyone I know (or on ME forums) would write, it seems edited to sound more favourable at the very least). Mentions this study from 1995 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8542261 (Costa et al.)...

Open label, sigh...

Notice also what all of these have in common (along with convulsive vasovagal syncope)? They are all acute phenomena that have short timeframes, they are not equilibrium processes, they are not self-sustaining.

The problem is they don't use such (eg measurements of cortisol or catecholamines) in a systematic manner. You can't just measure cortisol once, along with a questionnaire and jump to some sort of generalised conclusion. There is a lot more involved, especially if you are trying to invoke...

The publisher has existed in the Netherlands since 1987 and this particular journal since 1990 https://content.iospress.com/journals/work/1/1 The problem is that if many universities don't have access to the article (this is a paywalled journal), then no one will ever read the paper.

I don't see publishing fee at all, this is not a fee-to-publish open access journal. They are not on any of the lists of predatory publishers either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_Press https://predatoryjournals.com/ However, that doesn't mean that there aren't more suitable/higher quality...

This looks to be a good quality study at first glance, there didn't seem to be any compelling group-wise differences between patients and controls. Looks like another unnecessary test, hopefully this will save some patients some money...