Search results

  1. M

    Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for (CFS & ME), 2023, White et al

    Yes, Subject Access Requests are like FOI requests, but specifically requesting information about <yourself> (it comes under GDPR). You can't make a request about another person. FOI only really applies to public bodies so we can't apply that here as the BMJ and JNNP are a private organisation...
  2. M

    Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for (CFS & ME), 2023, White et al

    Minor update from MEAction UK. https://www.meaction.net/2023/08/21/meaction-uk-interim-update-on-jnnp-complaint/ We've had our complaint acknowledged but not responded to yet, have submitted a Subject Access Request and are looking at further steps. I.e. it's ongoing and we're continuing to...
  3. M

    Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for (CFS & ME), 2023, White et al

    Of particular interest to people would be this post from a previous BMJ rapid response editor. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/01/31/sharon-davies-why-were-reluctant-to-remove-rapid-responses-from-bmj-com/
  4. M

    Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for (CFS & ME), 2023, White et al

    We are disappointed that the JNNP decided to remove our Rapid Response to, “Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis”.1 In the email from your editorial office ‘inappropriate...
  5. M

    Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for (CFS & ME), 2023, White et al

    MEAction UK initially sent a quick email to the JNNP straight after it was noticed that our rapid response was removed from publication to see if it was just an error. Around the same time as the JNNP updated the online paper with their comment explaining the removal, we received an email...
  6. M

    Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for (CFS & ME), 2023, White et al

    Apologies if anyone saw a post from me just now - I made a post regarding MEAction UK's response to the JNNP, but jumped the gun as we have not actually sent it yet! As such I've deleted the post here and will post it again tomorrow morning. Oh dear I guess I could work for a journal as a...
  7. M

    Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for (CFS & ME), 2023, White et al

    We had no prior notification about our RR being removed, so this afternoon we've emailed the JNNP to ask for clarification. Despite (copious) previous evidence to the contrary, I try to assume human error in the first instance and that this happened as a screw up while they were fixing the...
  8. M

    Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for (CFS & ME), 2023, White et al

    I'd recommend people do sign up for Community Notes. When writing notes on tweets always write in a neutral tone and provide high quality evidence links. Counter incorrect facts only, do not attack the person or anything that is an opinion, however outrageous - those notes will not end up...
  9. M

    Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for (CFS & ME), 2023, White et al

    MEAction UK's submitted response to the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. https://www.meaction.net/2023/07/12/meaction-uk-submits-a-rapid-response-to-the-jnnp-in-support-of-nice/
Back
Top Bottom