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
Jackson laboratory's blog on the summit:
BHC: Second Annual Meeting for ME/CFS Clinician Coalition
https://jaxmecfs.com/2019/04/09/bhc-second-annual-meeting-for-me-cfs-clinician-coalition/
This left me perplexed. Is it complete quackery or a promising diagnostic method?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15622975.2019.1599143?journalCode=iwbp20
Changes:
reference to the Cochrane review and the PACE trial in the treatment part
new paragraph about the mechanism of change:
Relies on Chalder's research, so just a big joke
Another ridiculous claim (already in the former edition though): (even with their biased methodology, there is...
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.