1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 8th April 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Submission to the Scottish Parliament by Jonathan Edwards

Discussion in 'Open Letters and Replies' started by Jonathan Edwards, Jul 7, 2018.

  1. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,857
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Nor am I.

    I forgot about the S4ME-Cochrane thread and just noticed that some of my vaguely posed questions already had been addressed there. Parts of my concerns will move to that thread soon.

    I highly appreciate your endeavor and find these reactions more than sloppy.

    What I tried to ask: Are there really no allies in the field of psychological medicine who, independently from ME related research, have pointed out that unblinded trials without objective measures are of null evidence and are regularly overrated in peer reviews and/or by Cochrane? And that this needs to change?

    No scientists in the field of MS research, no scientists in the field of neuropsychiatric/ neuropsychologic research?
     
  2. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,451
    Location:
    London, UK
    A good point. I would hope that there are scientists in the MS field who would agree. MS trials moved over to the objective measure of MRI because of the problems of subjective clinical measures.

    David Marks, the editor of Journal of Health Psychology seems to agree. Interestingly, the person who wrote criticising IAPT in JHP might not be quite so happy with a blanket criticism. Maybe James Coyne would agree with my analysis but I have a feeling even he has expressed reservations. It is hard to agree to the basis for virtually all research in you field being not much good. Carolyn Wilshire certainly seems to agree that the apparent positive result in PACE could be due to subjective bias.
     
  3. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,337

    Apologies for missing this Q, Amw66.

    I am winding down towards retirement in August/September and in the interim, I am only working on my own projects and collaborations with Mary Dimmock.

    I will add, however, that the statement:

    "ME is now defined by the World Health Organisation ICD11 as 8E49 ‘post viral fatigue syndrome’ under the heading ‘Other disorders of the nervous system’ with the synonyms ‘benign myalgic encephalomyelitis’ and ‘chronic fatigue syndrome’."

    needs to be read in the context of my May 2018 update on the status of the revision of the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy categories for ICD-11:

    https://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/pvfs-timeline-v2.pdf

    particularly these sections:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
    Inara, mango, Emsho and 2 others like this.
  4. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,318
    many thanks @Dx Revision Watch
    tagging @Emsho to enable this to be taken into account
     
  5. Emsho

    Emsho Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    27

Share This Page