NICE guideline on ME/CFS: robust advice based on a thorough review of the evidence, 2024, Barry et al.

Dx Revision Watch said:
The 2023 Peter White et al Review and this recent NICE response are both in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry (JNNP) not in the https://www.bmj.com.

The 2023 Peter White et al Review is in the Archive section of JNNP and I can't see any responses tab, as such - or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

The answer is actually pretty simple. If the original article is open access which it is, then a response should also be open access, but sometimes as we have seen before that needs to be pointed out to the (editor of the) journal
 
https://jnnp.bmj.com/pages/editorial-board

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Editorial Board members

--------------------------

Editorial office

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry Editorial Office BMA House Tavistock Square London, WC1H 9JR UK
Email: jnnp@bmj.com Tel: +44 (0) 203 655 5997


I'd contact them but I've been up most of the night with my son and not at my most articulate, today.
 
In contrast to the original JNNP rant article, I've not seen any media coverage of NICE's reply. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing but it would be nice to see PACE Club getting a dressing down from NICE in the media - particularly if they picked up on SW appearing to directly contradict himself.
 
Robert 1973 said:
In contrast to the original JNNP rant article, I've not seen any media coverage of NICE's reply. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing but it would be nice to see PACE Club getting a dressing down from NICE in the media - particularly if they picked up on SW appearing to directly contradict himself.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It was blown up here in Norway as well in multiple sources so I am wondering if we will see any mention at all..
 
Oh man, NICE's response is so good to finally see after all this time. It's all so well-said and reasoned. I fervently hope it will become un-paywalled but it's great to see full copies of it in various other sources in the meantime. This really needs to be widely seen. And yes, I specially love
In 2019, stakeholder feedback regarding the NICE guideline on depression expressed concern that NICE had not considered long-term outcomes. They requested that ‘NICE should conduct a proper analysis of 1 and 2-year follow-up data where available and prioritise treatment recommendations made on the basis of this data’ and subsequently stated that ‘long-term follow-up, where available, must be included and prioritised’. This is precisely what NICE has done in the ME/CFS guideline.
Click to expand...
Priceless!
 
ME Association:

https://meassociation.org.uk/2024/0...e-based-on-a-thorough-review-of-the-evidence/

JNNP: NICE guideline on ME/CFS: robust advice based on a thorough review of the evidence
February 29, 2024

"...The reply from NICE represents a very robust defence of the way in which NICE reviewed all the evidence and the new treatment recommendations – centered around energy management and pacing – that were agreed by the guideline committee. We would like to thank Dr Peter Barry, Baroness Ilora Finlay, Kate Kelly and Toni Tan for preparing this very thorough reply. We hope that this will now mark an end to these unfounded criticisms of the new NICE guideline on ME/CFS from a tiny minority of healthcare professionals."

"While the critical review that was published last year was made free to view by the BMJ, the response from NICE is currently behind a paywall. We have requested that we take extracts from it so that you can better appreciate the response or that the BMJ make it free to view by anyone. In the meantime, all we can share is the abstract"
 
From @MSEsperanza:

Earlier in this thread I think someone asked about the possibility to leave rapid responses both on the White et al Anomalies paper and on the response by NICE authors Barry et al.

Also I think someone asked about reactions on social media or media coverage etc.

Apologies if posted already, but in any case:

1) Link to rapid responses to the Anomalies piece:

https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/94/12/1056.responses


2) Link to article metrics (Anomalies piece):

https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/94/12/1056.altmetrics

There you'll find not only the media outlets citing the piece but also that it's quoted on the Wikipedia page on NICE:

"A joint statement of medical leaders, published by the Royal College of Physicians, expressed concern that the NICE guidelines for ME/CFS (October 2021) did not properly evaluate or recommend graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy for the treatment of ME/CFS.[38] A study by 49 academics concludes that the dissonance between the 2021 guidelines the previous guideline was the result of deviating from usual scientific standards of the NICE process. The consequences of this are that patients may be denied helpful treatments and therefore risk persistent ill health and disability.[39]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=429680


3) Link to rapid responses to the paper by NICE authors (no responses yet -- last checked 2024-02-29):

https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/early/2024/02/28/jnnp-2023-332731.responses


4) Link to Article metrics (NICE response):

https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/early/2024/02/28/jnnp-2023-332731.altmetrics



The reference on Wikipedia is in the Swedish language Wikipedia page on "CFS" if I understood correctly, but no spoons to check.

Agree with others that the response by NICE authors should be free access AND the paper it responds to should somehow show that it has a response by NICE people which it currently doesn't .

Also would be nice if some of the media outlets that reported about the Anomalies paper would now also report about its rebuttal.
 
Sean said:
Making the original article free access, but not the response, massively favours the former.

The journal must reverse that decision immediately.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with the journal. As an author, you can choose whether to make your paper open access or not. Keeping your paper behind a paywall is free while open access publishing is very expensive. I looked up what it costs at JNNP and it's nearly 4000 pounds. NICE obviously haven't chosen to pay to make their paper accessible/quotable to the general public.

https://jnnp.bmj.com/pages/authors#article_publishing_charges
 
yannlk said:
I wish s4me popped up higher on google results. Took me a while to find it when I first started religiously reading ME literature.
Click to expand...

I am afraid that maybe the robots have concluded that S4ME members are much too sensible to be worth putting it at the top of Google. And they will have established that the most expensive items that members buy are vegetable knives, earplugs and soup warmers!
 
https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/rapid-responses/

Responsible debate, critique and disagreement are important features of science. BMJ welcomes reader responses, questions and comments to published articles in its journals to allow a range of opinions to be expressed and to promote debate.

A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal. Anyone can submit a rapid response on the journal website and they are free to access. Rapid responses should be no longer than 600 words (excluding references), they should not include original data, tables, figures, images or patient information. Responses do not receive a DOI and are not indexed in third party databases.

Many BMJ journals publish Letters or Correspondence; these are peer reviewed articles submitted to the journal’s submission system. These articles receive a DOI and are indexed in the applicable indices associated with the journal. Some rapid responses may be selected for publication in the journal as Letters or Correspondence; in these cases the author will be informed of the required steps etc.
 
Sean said:
Making the original article free access, but not the response, massively favours the former.

The journal must reverse that decision immediately.
Click to expand...
Are any of the other comments to their article paywalled - I know lots weren’t published or took time to be as well?

what’s ‘the Norm’ for other journals?


I thought even if article pay walled responses often aren’t so to have a response paywalled when the article wasn’t seems an eccentric/ unusual combo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom