Search results

I'm sorry to say I'm rather critical of this paper. 1) Its main argument seems to be that there is an important distinction between a mental health disorder and a serious biological disease. I think mental health disorders are most often serious biological diseases as well. At one point the...

Ah weekends, that thing that normal people do. Forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me Esther. Was already thinking about resubmitting a more polite version, but will wait and see until Monday.

I've submitted a rapid response to the BMJ article yesterday afternoon at 15.45 PM (Brussels time). I've got a confirmation of it on email, but it still hasn't been posted by BMJ. I think that's weird because the equally long response by Simon E Kolstoe was published the day the original...

That would make sense. Hope it's just because I'm a non-native speaker of English that I was unsure about this being the sole interpretation. Apologies if I caused confusion.

I would interpret it like that as well. But the actual wording is: It refers to an appendix, where the old version of the Helsinki Declaration is given. So without mentioning the part about conflicts of interest. EDIT: it's a shame because IMO they obviously stressed the word 'current', to...

I don't think this is stated in the 1996 version of the Declaration of Helsinki where the MRC guidelines refers to.

You can find the different versions here. https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/ A quick search indicated that it was the 2000 revision that brought in the passage about informing participants about conflicts of interest

Its in the published protocol (2007), under competing interests. EDIT: can't find it in the 226 pages version that Adrian and Lucibee shared

Ah, yes. Thank you. It's on page 110 of the PACE trial protocol. Final version 5.0. 01.02.2006

Thanks. Are you sure this is all of it because I don't see any information about funding.

Does anyone have a copy of the patient information sheet?

Don't know if this has already been highlighted or not, but re-reading the HRA letter, they seem to actually confirm that patients were not informed about the PACE-trial researchers' consultancy work to insurance companies. But then they try to argue that this - somehow - does not constitute a...

I think this is based on patient surveys. In the 2014 AfME survey about a third of respondents said they found GET helpful. In the 2015 survey by the ME Association, this figure was lower (12%) but their conclusion was similar: "As a physical exercise-based therapy, GET may be of benefit to a...

Epub ahead of print. French study, university of Marseille.

Crawley uses the NICE-criteria. From the protocol:

This thread has been split from the general thread on the PACE trial. The Health Research authority has responded to questions of MP Norman Lamb from the Science and Technology Committee, House of Commons, regarding the PACE-trial...

I also would like to mention the thing we're not discussing. I just want to say I'm glad that Valerie Elliot Smith wrote about it. I like to know things rather than not know them. I disagreed with the form and conlusions, in which she made the information public, but I think writing about the...

If there are such rules, then it's rather unfortunate that these are not made public. Perhaps someone could highlight this in the NICE stakeholder engagement survey: that the procedure of selecting members of the guideline development group, should be made more transparent and explicit (I've...

Just to be clear, this was about a review of the previous guideline. It seems unrelated to the current proces of writing a new guidelines. Do we have formal evidence of this, or is it just the impression of people close to the developments?

Study from Belgium. Find it a bit difficult to understand. Here's a Forbes article about the main findings. https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2019/02/04/new-study-indicates-link-between-depression-and-gut-bacteria/#146f0d3445d2