Top 10 scientific publications in ME/CFS over the last 10 years based on number of citations [Tweet by Dr Mark Gutheridge]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1080374574796148736


Just the image

Considered putting this in the thread that is talking about research duplication/self-plagiarism but thought it was worth it's own thread.

 

I had a letter published in reply to the De Lange et al. 2008 paper: "Change in grey matter volume cannot be assumed to be due to cognitive behavioural therapy" https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/132/7/e119/324121?searchresult=1

 

I think it would be interesting to see if there are any trends in the individual years of that 10 year period, and, like someone else points out on the Twitter thread, how many of those citations for PACE, in particular, are critiques?

 

I've created threads for the four other behavioural studies, discussion of PACE can be found here, https://s4me.info/threads/a-general-thread-on-the-pace-trial.807/

• "Childhood trauma and risk for CFS", https://s4me.info/threads/childhood...roendocrine-dysfunction-2009-heim-et-al.7462/
• "Probiotic in emotional symptoms of CFS", https://s4me.info/threads/a-randomi...tional-symptoms-of-cfs-2009-logan-et-al.7463/
• "Cortical volume following CBT in CFS", https://s4me.info/threads/increase-...n-patients-with-cfs-2008-de-lange-et-al.7465/
• "CBT for CFS", https://s4me.info/threads/cochrane-...gue-syndrome-in-adults-2008-price-et-al.7466/

ETA: Formatting.

 

And while I was at it, I decided to do the biomedical ones as well

• "Immunological aspects of CFS", https://s4me.info/threads/immunological-aspects-of-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-2009-lorusso-et-al.7468/
• "CFS and mitochondrial dysfunction", https://s4me.info/threads/chronic-f...chondrial-dysfunction-2009-myhill-et-al.7469/
• "Painful bladder, IBS, fibromyalgia and CFS", https://s4me.info/threads/interstit...-ibs-fibromyalgia-cfs-2010-nickel-et-al.7470/

 

As well as the issue of picking out the balance of citations that are critical, as is probable with a significant proportion of the PACE ones, should we be giving studies using the Oxford criteria false creditibilty as referring to them as ME/CFS studies? Surely we should only refer to them as 'chronic fatigue studies mis-categorised as ME/CFS' studies.

 

Maybe the lower number of citations attributed to biological research is just an indication of the relative difficulty of conducting and publishing such research.

Biological research often requires carrying out hundreds, if not thousands, of complex and sensitive experiments that involve cutting edge technology. This may make such studies somewhat more scarce than papers that rely on methods such as jumping on a piece of paper and the filling out of subjective symptom reports afterwards.

 

I think this is just an indication that nowadays papers with most citations will be the worst. The 'biomedical' papers quoted are about the worst one can think of.

I would forget citation indices. They are a sign of the blind leading the blind.