Search results

?

Longitudinal Population-based Observational Study of COVID-19 in the UK Population (COVIDENCE UK) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04330599

There are a lot of journals, perhaps the majority, where there is no fee, but then they are generally behind a paywall.

Preprint https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339886499_Mitochondria_and_Immunity_in_Chronic_Fatigue_Syndrome Free full text...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168010220301577

Via Dr. Marc-Alexander Fluks Free full text: https://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses/10366/

I'm pleased to see this:

Yes, consultation could be good. Though I'm not sure how easy it will be to ever get agreement. Some people only want myalgic encephalomyelitis on its own while it's unlikely many in the medical establishment would be happy with that, though they can live with ME in combination with another...

A 2019 study by the Leonard Jason team themselves found that more healthy controls were picked up by satisfying both the Fukuda et al and the Canadian criteria that the IOM criteria...

Leonard Jason himself found that the Fukuda et al criteria if just assessed on paper without exclusions could lead to some people with Multiple Sclerosis and most people with Lupus to be diagnosed with CFS

This study seems to have some important limitations As the authors themselves say: As I recall, the 2/2 severity and frequency threshold were not used for the 3 of the 4 elements of the paper that are referenced above. The paper was also criticised by a team led by one of the IOM authors...

As I recall in their commentary, Jason et al decided that the 2/2 frequency and severity thresholds should be required for this CCC and ICC criteria. Not everyone would say should thresholds are required for the CCC and ICC criteria. Also it is not necessarily the end of the world if a set of...

They say that patient reactions were mixed, but only give examples of negative responses; they don't give any positive responses. I recall that quite a number were mentioned in the discussion forum discussing it here...

This may be true if the criteria are used literally, but the lack of exclusions was designed with clinical practice in mind so that people wouldn't end up not being diagnosed because they had another condition; with research cohorts, I expect most, if not nearly all research groups would add on...

One possible set of reasons for the follow-up study not being published would be Peter White's health problems, plus his retirement from his professorship and from clinical practice (though not from his insurance work, from what I understand). Some data from the PACE Trial that was promised...

This study used the Reeves et al (2005) criteria which give a prevalence rate of 2.54% and which are really bad.

A statistical reviewer suggested some other means of analysis (I can’t recall the details now). Prior immunizations in the six months prior to onset dropped out as a risk factor with the new analysis.

I see a statistician was recruited as a reviewer and was paid a “small honorarium”. Might be worthwhile for other journals to do this also.

NeuroToxicology Available online 25 April 2020

https://web.archive.org/web/20160616151514/http://vitality360.co.uk/about-us/