1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 15th April 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

A laboratory approach for characterizing chronic fatigue: what does metabolomics tell us?, 2019, Erasmus et al

Discussion in ''Conditions related to ME/CFS' news and research' started by Andy, Nov 30, 2019.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,956
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Paywall, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11306-019-1620-4
    Scihub, https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/s11306-019-1620-4
     
  2. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,926
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
     
  3. rogerblack

    rogerblack Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    43
    I do wish people would use terms less casually. I note for example NICE used 'abstract review' in one round of summarising the field, and using CFS/ME in this manner is reprehensible in abstract if they are excluded.

    It annoyed me enough in the end I wrote the corresponding author asking:
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2019
    Mithriel, alktipping, MEMarge and 7 others like this.
  4. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,462
    Location:
    Canada
    Well that's a puzzling decision. That fatigue is no more explained than any other group other than there being a label for it. Completely arbitrary choice based on superficial characteristics that does not inspire confidence in the results.

    At least it's consistent in studying idiopathic fatigue but the distinction is without much difference. Knowing that something causes another thing is not an explanation for how that thing works.
     
    alktipping and MEMarge like this.

Share This Page