Search results

This just seems like more of an argument to use even stricter systematic methods, rather than give up on them altogether I agree. Some of the most compelling reasons for dismissing the evidence for CBT and GET don't really fit into the methods of GRADE, which demonstrates a lot of issues with...

I suspect GRADE opts out there because claiming to be objective would be a very bold claim to make, and it still needs to be kept in mind that there's allowance for subjectivity. I don't think a truly objective method for assessing evidence could ever be found, but that doesn't mean that the...

I think I agree with you that the pseudo-arithmetic borders a bit on being pseudoscientific. I still think you need some kind of strict systematic methods to prevent bias though. I don't get the impression that it's that hard to put together a committee of people that have the same blind spots...

The idea behind methods like GRADE and systematic reviews is eliminating as much bias as possible in reviews of evidence. Hence why they need to create these search terms that get thousands of results which they have to spend months sorting through to systematically the find all the right...

So it seems like the two main reasons behind the royal colleges objections are the diagnostic criteria and the use of the GRADE system. Those are terrible reasons. There are good reasons behind requiring PEM, and even if PEM wasn't required, it's likely NICE would have came to the same or a...

I don't think this is an exactly accurate portrayal of what they're saying. I think they're just saying that subjective measures were patient centred as a way to make a lot of researchers across different disciplines look good, they're not making an implication patients shouldn't be listened to...

The rejection of GET and CBT in the NICE guideline was based on a number of different reasons beyond just the unblinded with subjective outcomes issue: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ng10091/documents/evidence-review-7. I have a bit of concern that just mentioning that problem makes it...

I think he's saying that stuff because the person he's replying to is saying people with ME can't exercise (rather than a more qualified or nuanced statement about GET), which isn't true. What that person also says about biomed research showing that people with ME can't exercise isn't true...

He may have meant a diagnostic criteria. NICE didn't recommend a specific diagnostic criteria, but just recommended looking for certain key symptoms

That makes some sense, his article does read a bit like he's trying to justify non-evidence based treatments under the guise of individualisation. It's such a vague concept that anything could be meant by it. But right now anyone that wants the guideline to be published is miles ahead in...

At least it's sympathetic to people with ME/CFS, and it calls for the guideline to be published

The NICE guideline still offers advice on management and support. That certainly is something.

It's likely there's going to be a lot of opinions from people that haven't even read the evidence documentation NICE has provided or even understand the methods by which NICE has evaluated the evidence. Maybe I missed one, but when the draft guideline came out I'm not sure I saw even one...

I was reading through Hilda's blog post on the pace trial: https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2019/02/08/consumer-contested-evidence-why-the-me-cfs-exercise-dispute-matters-so-much/, and at one point she talked about how the researchers involved in the pace trial removed a lot of material that...

I don't really see why a computational infectious disease epidemiologist would have any special insight into whether long covid is psychosomatic

I'm not sure what they mean by that, but if you download a pdf from sci-hub it's the same as the pdf you would've gotten from the journal website, so they can't tell you got it from sci-hub

The plan doesn't mention an assessment or consideration of the quality of outcome measures for ME/CFS (like for example SF-36 or the Chalder fatigue scale). So if someone submits a comment they can mention that, if they want. The cochrane handbook chapter on patient reported outcomes could be...

The 5% figure came from a review (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15699087/) that mostly relied on people that had been sick for around 5 years or longer, and on studies that had relatively short follow ups (most with 2 years or less). For people sick for less than 5 or 2 years the chance of...

I'm not sure if someone has already mentioned this but in Busse's letter where he refers to the NICE review as a "disastrous misapplication of GRADE" (https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4774/rr-7), quoted in the recent almost satirically biased BMJ article, it's pretty obvious he only actually...

Some psychotherapy is like that, like psychodynamic psychotherapy, but the CBT kind tends to try to be more scientific and medical. It's not clear to me how well it suceeds at that