Search results

They say a difference of 6 is considered a clinically relevant effect for the CIS-20, and they cite this paper for that statement. I don't see that substantiated in that paper For that chart showing standard errors for those figures, what's more important is the 95% confidence interval for the...

Can they at least give an explanation as to why it's okay to write a review with a clinically unimportant "non-zero" effect as the effect of interest, and then not tell anyone that's what you've done? (besides a footnote that doesn't clarify anything at all) They're not even going to give an...

Good to hear

I've seen it pointed out that it can make responses that sound very plausible and as if it knows what it is talking about, but are still wrong or messy or confused. So if anyone does this they still need to make sure they fully understand what they're submitting, and check it to make sure it's...

It notes that "Regarding the hypothesis formulation, a two-sided test problem is traditionally assumed. Exceptions include non-inferiority studies". So almost everything is a two-sided hypothesis. I think it's two sided in the manner that it's determining whether a treatment is superior or...

That's understandable. Unfortunately I don't know German, so I would struggle to submit my own comment, but it would be good if anyone can incorporate any of the points I made into their submission

As suggested by @MSEsperanza I will also post the comments that I put in the pdf too, so they're easier to view and refer to, which follow on from the comments I made in the post above: The General Methods handbook states on page 44 “In the event of particularly serious or even life-threatening...

This is the draft of comments I've written up. It got a bit long, so I put some of the less important or more duplicated points in an attached file (generally there’s some overlap between these comments and those made by others). Some, or all, of these points could be added to the EMEC comment...

This all looks correct, great work. It looks like they relied on the PEM survey referred to in the iqwig preliminary report to determine how many people had PEM in PACE, which, as you've explained (and iqwig have explained too), is not at all sufficient for that purpose. It's a very big...

I don't think that's exactly what they're saying here, although it sort of is. That's how it's categorized in table 54. So if it's a randomized trial and it has a high level of bias, then for a particular endpoint (fatigue, physical function, sleep quality etc.), you look at the line of the...

I've had a not super thorough look at the google translated document (so I may be mistaken about some aspects). There's probably a lot to say about this report, however here is one of the more important parts. Here is the conclusion for GET vs SMC: "When comparing GET versus SMC, the morbidity...

They didn't find a clinically relevant effect size for GET vs SMC for the primary outcomes so I assume they saw no point in including a sensitivity analysis for GET

I think at this point everyone has heard the counter arguments. Perhaps one or two responses are fine. But besides that I do not see any point in any more substantial engagement. And, I think, paying more attention to him probably has the effect of amplifying him more (both in terms of...

If Garner is just trying to get a reaction, as appears to be the case in above tweeting, it's better to just ignore him

In some previous instances when they've used the #maddoxprize tag it's been in various instances of scientists facing hostility, which is the topic of the prize, so not necessarily

It's very annoying for people to take such predictable stances and arguments like that, but at the same time think that they're being so brave by doing so. There really is nothing brave or intellectual about regurgitating tropes about a topic which you have a shallow understanding of. That...

Yes, there is a shortage of researchers interested in ME/CFS, because of stigma and other reasons. But funding in biomedical research isn't that easy to get, so if a dedicated amount of funding is set aside for ME, I think that will lead to researchers applying to get the funding (which is what...

I'm not sure if it's just a general consequence of politicians promising things that they don't plan to deliver, but it seems common for politicians to make statements about increasing funding/taking action on ME/CFS, and then it going nowhere. It could be that there's some behind the scenes...

I agree with the analysis from @cassava7, which is very good, and also @Hutan's comments. It's indisputible that these are small effect sizes, especially for the CBT. A 2-3 point reduction on a 33 point scale isn't much, and their choice of Minimal Important Difference is pretty arbitrary

Yes it is concerning how long this issue has gone on for. I hope they can listen to the concerns in this thread, and understand that people aren't looking to bully anyone - people just want to help Doctors with ME do better