Good question. I think it should be able to, @Jonathan Edwards can you confirm?Will it be able to be included in the NICE review?
Hopefully, with the mess that is currently happening at Cochrane, this review will be taken more seriously than it would have been before...
Nobody else that I can see has mentioned the title : "Graded exercise therapy for ME/CFS is not effective and unsafe."
In my opinion this is poor and confusing English. It has a word missing, and should say : "Graded exercise therapy for ME/CFS is not effective and is unsafe."
Anyone else agree? Or am I making a mountain out of a molehill?
I agree. My revised title was
“Graded exercise therapy for ME/CFS is ineffective and unsafe.”
But either is better.
You are absolutely right.Nobody else that I can see has mentioned the title : "Graded exercise therapy for ME/CFS is not effective and unsafe."
In my opinion this is poor and confusing English. It has a word missing, and should say : "Graded exercise therapy for ME/CFS is not effective and is unsafe."
Anyone else agree? Or am I making a mountain out of a molehill?
I've often wondered if any cardiologists were shown the results of the walking test in PACE. I suspect that physicians never read PACE assuming it to be for psychiatrists.
Hogwash. Statement only valid if it's all done properly, including ascertaining if the papers under review were themselves good science. And whether your definition of harm captures the kind of harms PwME are talking about.[29.52 EC] So the evidence, the best evidence that you can ever get is what’s called the Systematic Review, it’s when you look at all of the papers, and all of the research that’s ever been done, and you combine the data. And the largest systematic review, of over 1,500 people was absolutely clear, there was no evidence of harm."