This is a big problem. That's why, before any solid study is published giving us an idea of what the rate of structural problems is in people presenting with ME symptoms, it is premature IMO to tell people to make an appointement with these surgeons.
Thanks a lot @Michiel Tack for gathering all that. It's essential that every patients have access to all information available before making any decision.
There is the Behavioural responses to illness questionnaire (Chalder and Moss-Morris) I guess it's an older version of this one, but I'm sure it can give a general idea of what it looks like:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/11eb/53aafd944bed31bb2ae6fac716cac8a7c2c3.pdf
Posts relating to this article (Measurements of Recovery and Predictors of Outcome in an Untreated CFS Sample (2019) Thomas et al.) have been moved to a new thread.
The overlap between entry and recovery criteria is also something that is easily understandable by non scientific people. (At entry, 65 is a score considered to correspond to great disabilty, but the same result (65) is used as a sign of recovery at the end of the trial).
For a bit of background, about the authors (all working for Panaxea, "an independent consultancy company spun-out from the University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands")
http://panaxea.eu/who-we-are/
I wonder why they did this review and who paid for it.
As a reminder, the authors have alreay published an article on the Cochrane review (see here).
We discussed it here.
Edit: about the exercice review, while the new one is about CBT, thanks @Trish
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.