Search results

Thanks for your comments @rvallee . Althought I'm not sure what you mean by initial peer review. This was a problem in the Cochrane review that intended to use individual patient data but I'm not aware of this on the Cochrane review I've discussed. The email correspondence discussed some of...

Thanks for pointing this out. I will go with the version @MSEsperanza proposes. It now reads:

Thanks for your interesting comments @Esther12. Think I disagree with you on most points, though. Will try to explain my thoughts below: I see. But I think I still prefer the current format as the arguments that (1) subjective improvements are below some estimates of the minimal clinically...

References [1] Larun L, Brurberg KG, Odgaard-Jensen J, Price JR. Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Version published: 02 October 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub8 [2] Pouchot J, Kherani RB, Brant R, Lacaille D, Lehman AJ, Ensworth S...

I've written a blog post about the recent amendment to the Cochrane review and how it doesn't address the major flaws. I will post the full text below as this makes it easier to quote and discuss...

One interesting bit was at the very end when Van Elzakker said he would like to see more fundamental research into possible mechanisms rather than research into ME/CFS per se. When doctors say all possible tests are negative and don't show anything, these are usually blood tests and the blood...

For transparency: I've just sent the email to info@meaction.net and the emailadressses of the ME Action team listed on this webpage (https://www.meaction.net/about/team/). I've added the following introduction: Dear ME Action, In light of your participatory values and policy initiative, I...

Yes sorry that was a mistake. I've redone the calculation with the figure from the powerpoint I've linked earlier: a mean of 83.3 and standard deviation of 23.7 (I suspect these represent the figures of the 1998 National Survey of Functional Health, which I couldn't find a publication of)...

11) Selection bias Some have made the argument that the Cochrane review is wrong to claim that most studies had a low risk of selection bias. In the Cochrane risk of bias tool, however, selection bias refers to adequate randomization and allocation concealment. It’s about the risk of baseline...

I plan on sending the proposal tomorrow.

Thanks I've changed it. I was somewhat confused because the document says: © DEGAM 2017. Sometimes there can be a delay between when a report is written and formally published. Perhaps this was the case here? The final page seems to say that the guideline was initially released in 2002 and...

Thanks Kalliope! I've added your sources to the overview, hope my summary is ok. I'm mostly interested in the promo article by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), because it's a government agency. Thanks Joh. I've added these. Hope my summary is ok. Thanks, I've added this...

It does, but I don't think it's all that clear. It makes a distinction between: Graded exercise therapy: exercise in which the incremental increase in exercise was defined by discussion between participant and therapist Exercise with pacing: exercise in which the incremental increase in...

Tagging some people who might know more: @mango @Kalliope @Cheshire @Rick Sanchez @rvallee @TigerLilea @strategist @Hutan @Ravn @andypants @Aroa @Hubris @mariovitali

I thought it might be useful to get an overview of medical guidelines on ME/CFS that have been influenced by the Cochrane review on graded exercise therapy (GET). I’m mostly interested in official government positions or influential medical authorities that have referred to the Cochrane review...

I do think that the Cochrane review could have mentioned the many patient surveys indicating harms by GET. They span a period of almost 30 years and cover multiple countries. All together they represent a patient sample that is much larger than the one included in the randomized trials. In...

10) Harmful effects I also had a look at possible harmful effects. Next to fatigue, this was the primary outcome of the review. Larun et al. have downgraded the quality of evidence for this outcome to very low quality (the lowest rating) because there was too little data to form any conclusion...

Thanks @Snowflake I've added you to the list!

Just throwing this in here: The Jason et al. 2007 studied determined clinically significant effects for the physical function scale as follows:

True. But if you take for example half a standard deviation of a sample of patients who filled in the questionnaire, it's clear that the patients didn't determine the MID. The estimate is not their judgment even though their data was used. The anchoring method uses a bit more of the patient's...