Search results

NICE has made summaries of qualitative research (such as studies that performed interviews to see how they experience GET etc.). It also commissioned surveys on experiences on GET/CBT, experiences of children with ME/CFS and patients with severe ME/CFS - I suspect that's what he is referring to...

Thanks will do so. Would this work: "The first and foremost principle of rating quality of evidence should be to understand the specifics of what is being assessed. One has to understand the nature of the intervention and how it is supposed to impact patients. Thanks for all the helpful...

I agree. Well done Caroline! Yes I also think that this extra sentence would be useful. Really hope they will do it. Thanks @Caroline Struthers

Thanks for the helpful suggestions @Esther12 @cassava7 @MSEsperanza . I have adjusted my commentary accordingly. The more I look into this, the more have the impression that Guyatt and colleagues view is directly at odds with what the GRADE handbook recommends. As Jonathan has pointed out...

As Esther noted, NICE rated all the evidence in support of GET as low to very low quality. But the Cochrane review actually did the same with only one exception: fatigue measured post-treatment which was rated as moderate quality. So not exactly a big difference. According to Gordon Guyatt...

Don't think so. The main difference seems to be that the Cochrane review has thrown all of the different types of GET interventions into one big comparison while NICE has made different tables for many of them. The approach by Cochrane is useful if you want to see the effect when all...

It's simply a case report - don't think it means much to be honest.

I'm thinking about submitting the following rapid response - any suggestions before I do so? ----------------------------------------- I would like to respond to the comment by Jason Busse and colleagues as it includes some remarkable statements. The authors criticize the NICE guidance...

Well, it is great for someone looking for an example of how applying the GRADE system can lead to a problematic conclusion. But for the ME/CFS patient community it's highly concerning that proponents of GET have managed to get Gordon Guyat to become involved and sign a statement such as this...

It is not as bad as I thought it would be. I like the sentence: "Do not automatically assume a psychological cause for persistent somatic symptoms in the absence of detectable pathological abnormalities."

Here are some articles about how researchers think there might be a link between ME/CFS and COVID-19 and that this warrants further research: Could the coronavirus trigger post-viral fatigue syndromes? | New Scientist As Their Numbers Grow, COVID-19 “Long Haulers” Stump Experts | Infectious...

This recent letter in JAMA stated: Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776560

Wessely did an important study where he showed that employment in the Gulf War was associated with increased health complaints that weren't seen in the Bosnia conflict or those military men serving during the Gulf War but not deployed there. It was reported in the Lancet...

Anyone have access to the full-text?

Thanks for explaining it (although I'm not very convinced by the explanation)

EDIT: I thought this was a new paper but it's from 2017! The authors of this paper are NIH-funded researchers who have focused their research on deoxyuridine triphosphate nucleotidohydrolases (dUTPase) encoded by herpesviruses such as Epstein -Barr virus (EBV), human herpesvirus -6 (HHV -6)...

I don't quite see why patients who will later go on to develop long covid or ME/CFS after COVID-19, would have much higher rates of false negatives on PCR testing?

The methods and various pathways are a bit too complex for me to understand but this seems to be the main conclusion/hypothesis behind it:

Thanks for the interesting comments and background. What about diabetes, obesity, heart disease: is there reliable evidence that diet works there as a treatment?