Search results

Two million people in UK living with long Covid, find studies Nicola Davis Science correspondent Wed 1 Jun 2022 16.19 BST https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/01/two-million-people-in-uk-living-with-long-covid-say-studies Includes comment from Dr David Strain, Layla Moran and Professor...

I'm not sure that it would have weight as a reference in this context, but in case, the NICE rec on drug tolerance was framed as based on committee member clinical experience (Pharmacological management evidence review F section 1.1.16, p.95).

I think some types of physical injury such as miscarriage may fall within tort rules on psychiatric injury/nervous shock (for example, see Bourhill v Young [1943]). Page v Smith was considered on the basis of nervous shock leading to (psychiatric) illness/injury (not as direct physical harm...

This was a list of the documented involvement I noted previously. Hopefully it was accurate at the time of posting but I'm not sure how complete it is. https://www.s4me.info/threads/carol-monaghan-granted-a-backbench-debate-uk-parliament-thursday-24th-january-2019.7719/page-3#post-136707

Thanks, @Hutan. A few more suggestions. Diagnosing and self-care for ME/CFS Perhaps note that advice in the linked webpage 'Tips for sleeping well (sleep hygiene)' can be counterproductive in ME/CFS. Trying to stick to regular waking and sleeping times may cause worsening. Sleep hygiene advice...

As well as the comments on LP by RCP and RCPsych, there was also a comment by the RCGP. @Brian Hughes discussed these in a blog post: https://thesciencebit.net/2021/10/31/self-styled-medical-leaders-defend-neurolinguistic-processing-as-legit-treatment-for-me-cfs/

If you already have enough messages please don't worry if you don't include the following. It is indeed tricky to be succinct so it is also fine to edit it down when translating. I hope the article is well received. Thanks, @Wyva. ME/CFS can be a very isolating illness due to the nature of its...

1. I think this might ideally be clarified by reminding that interventions the guideline states should not be offered, should no longer be offered, to avoid any ambiguity re selectively applying do not offer recommendations while commissioners and providers work things out. 2. It could perhaps...

This made me think of the Michael Franks track, 'The Critics Are Never Kind'. https://youtu.be/-xEL1usTMK8

Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry on Reproducibility and research integrity Opened 22 July 2021. Written submissions and videos for two oral evidence sessions are available, with a transcript for the first only at present. Session 1 - 1 December: Professor Neil Ferguson OBE...

As I see it, the point is that if RCPCH were criticised for referring to an individualised approach to gradually improve physical abilities, they may simply point to 1.11.13 and dismiss such criticism out of hand. It may be selectively quoted, that does not change that it is not inconsistent...

Context may be omitted, the point is you cannot fault them on specific language if it is taken directly from the guideline. As Hutan points out, criticisms made of the RCPCH or any body or service should ideally be as accurate as possible.

I agree there are a number of problems with the RCPCH GET view and advice for paediatricians, including: - the suggestion paediatricians have been doing guideline compliant GET all along, - the scope for "individualised approach" to be interpreted as the reader pleases, - "gradually improve...

I agree, you cannot have it both ways. But, I personally think it reasonable to consider the language in that particular statement consistent with the recommendation I quoted. RCPCH have not written that a programme will "increase abilities", they have written "improve abilities". It's difficult...

The NICE definition of GET describes increasing activity in fixed increments which is not how it is commonly implemented in current clinical practice by paediatricians. Instead, paediatricians use an individualised approach to gradually improve physical abilities.

DwME did make a position statement 'on behalf of' eight stakeholder organisations, 'Dr HNG Group Submission, with and on behalf of Doctors with M.E.' being the ninth entry on the list of organisations provided in the statement...

I think Appendix A in Evidence Review H.

They're under the heading 'Stakeholder workshop' on the documents page, along with a roundtable presentation pdf and the agenda and discussion points: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng206/history [PDF] https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng206/documents/minutes-31

I particularly liked this classic by the RCGP, which could be nominated for entry to the category, 'Most out of touch stakeholder comment on the draft guideline', though there are many worthy contenders.