Search results

The results are actually very clear that the intervention didn't work. the confidence interval for the primary outcome, WSAS measured at 52 weeks had a 95% confidence interval of −3.44 to 0.48. It excludes what the authors themselves have defined as the minimum clinically important difference...

The authors themselves have defined a minimum clinically important difference for the WSAS at 3.6 points. So 1.5 isn't even close. They measured the WSAS at 9 weeks (difference of 0.19), at 20 weeks (difference of 2.41), at 40 weeks (difference of 1.32), and at 52 weeks (difference of 1.48). At...

It seems that Henegan has been quite controversial because of his statements about COVID_19.

Made a similar thread last year: Biomedical research findings in ME/CFS that were replicated by multiple groups - discussion thread | Science for ME (s4me.info)

Waw, this is really a textbook example of how to misrepresent results: highlight a couple in a long list of secondary outcomes that reached statistical significance, even although differences were very minor and not clinically significant. Also: this study had an A versus A + B design. Patients...

Going through the report, I noticed that it says in the discussion section (page 157 in the pdf): So the strength of evidence, for GET and CBT was rated as low, even when the comparison was inactive therapies. It might be good to ask them to describe this in the abstract. Currently, the...

It may be used by some but I think there is no good justification for this. It is not hard to see why a waiting list control is highly problematic. A child could understand it. So if the field finds this acceptable, then psychological research would simply be unacceptable. I really think...

This is disappointing: But this is more interesting:

In my view, he focuses too much on diagnostic criteria, rather than methodological weaknesses of the trial. That might have given journalists the impression that it works for some.

I was thinking about a comment under the actual paper on Frontiers in Psychiatry. Would this be worth contacting the editors for? People who only read the abstract get quite a misleading message.

Joan also refers to this interesting paper by Raphael et al. which probably provides the most reliable info we have on this subject. The abstract reads:

Thanks @Joan Crawford Some interesting highlights:

Plan to post the following comment under the article. Feedback is appreciated. The results of this randomized trial are presented rather misleadingly. The authors (Gotaas et al.) have designed a new form of treatment for patients with ME/CFS which they call “interpersonal oriented cognitive...

Saugstad's response is disappointing as well.

Some highly problematic statements from Signe Agnes Flottrop: The study she discusses had a waiting list control group, was not blinded, and used subjective outcomes.

Thought this was interesting (from the google translation of the article):

Interesting article, thanks for posting. I was a bit surprised to see how (in)effective antidepressants are in this overview in figure 1

The 1994 paper by Altman that the authors refer to is also worth a read. it starts: Van Calster and colleagues comment on this paper, saying it "could have been written today, without changing a single word."

This seems to be the main result: Figure 2. (a) The Chalder Fatigue Scale (CFQ) and the (b) SF-36 physical functioning of all patients receiving 12 months of treatment before (pre) during (months 3-12) and 3 months after the treatment (month 15) is shown. The results do not look that...

I also would like to share my thoughts on the new announcements. First of all: I appreciate Hilda Bastian’s efforts to set this up and lead the independent advisory group as it probably a difficult position to be in. I think involving ME/CFS stakeholders and clinicians is a good idea that will...