The influence of the Cochrane review on GET

Adrian said:
Crawley used the Cochrane review to defend one of her trials including GET to the ethics committee when some patients complained about safety. She quoted the number analyzed figure for the whole Cochrane meta analysis even though there was limited harms reporting from most trials.
Click to expand...

people criticise politicians for selective or incorrect quoting of statistics. EC isn’t a scientist she’s a politician.
 
There are no guidelines for ME nor CFS in France, where ME/CFS is often not considered as an autonomous entity (some kind of depression, or somatisation, or something close to fibromyalgia).

CFS is mentionned in the Fibromyalgia guidelines (2010) writen by the Haute Autorité de la Santé (HAS).
Their view on CFS (p.7):
The main difference seems to be the first symptom put forward: fatigue in CFS, pain in fibromyalgia.
Click to expand...

There is a small part (one page) dedicated to CFS where they refer to the NICE guidelines for CFS (p.64)

There are numerous references to Cochrane reviews, but only for fibromyalgia.
 
Wasn't sure where else to put this but I got it from a Google alert. A "lifestyle blog for healthcare professionals". In the category of "a little knowledge is dangerous", this is a good one. It looks like a content farm, though, not a serious publication.

Ironically, one of the linked papers literally shows the opposite, that "CFS" patients are different from sedentary controls, and as such are in fact not merely sedentary, which is literally the assumption behind the Cochrane review on exercise and the point that is awkwardly attempted to be made here. Impressive circular logic mixed with intellectual laziness.

Of course on PubMed no notice of the issues, review and editor notes of the past year or so. The damage continues because relevant information is not properly propagated. Scientific publication needs serious reform, it's embarrassing that there is no tracking of changes and update alerts. Also noticed the title of the review: "Tired of being inactive". What kind of nonsense is that? Cochrane is seriously very bad at their thing.
Sedentary lifestyle

It seems like a paradox that we need to expend energy in order to feel energized, but that is indeed the case. Chronic fatigue syndrome, one of the diseases du jour, appears to be linked to sedentary living. A Disability and Rehabilitation literature review showed that people with CFS tended to be less active and have less isometric muscle strength. This, of course, prompts a chicken or egg question, but regardless, it’s food for thought. A Cochrane Library study makes it clear: CFS patients who exercise feel less fatigued.
Click to expand...
https://www.mdlinx.com/physiciansense/heres-why-youre-always-tired-even-though-youre-healthy/
 
Last edited:
chrisb said:
Does that blog merely demonstrate what was always said = that CFS was intended to include those whose complaint was TATT?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it's just a content mill. One study is from 2011 and the Cochrane review is the 2016 version. Though it's not as if laziness like that was not common in real MD's and it's pretty much run-of-the-mill BPS.

But it did make its way to be relevant on Google and it reinforces misinformation, with Cochrane at fault in some ways.
 
NelliePledge said:
Diseases du jour :wtf:
Click to expand...
Yeah those are always cringeworthy. I remember a few old Wessely articles about ME and other older articles about similar psychosomatic ideas, how they are the talk of the town and how culture affects them because everyone is talking about them. All because the people around them are all involved in the same field. Literally "people are saying" because it is their own field of interest and they interact mainly with like-minded colleagues. Solipsists make very louzy physicians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom