1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 12th October 2020 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

A Review of BMJ Best Practice Document on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome by Professor James Baraniuk

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Daisymay, Oct 16, 2018.

  1. Daisymay

    Daisymay Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Professor Hooper’s peer-review comments were written to indicate the accurate situation that now obtains concerning the PACE trial raw data. People can judge for themselves if his comments were accepted by the BMJ by looking at their updated version of “Best Practice on CFS” released in September 2018. ( https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-gb/277/ )


    http://www.margaretwilliams.me/2018/hooper-review-bmj-best-practice-on-cfs.pdf

    A Review of BMJ Best Practice Document on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome by Professor James Baraniuk

    Professor Malcolm Hooper 24th June 2018


    NOTE: I was asked by the BMJ Section Editor (BMJ Best Practice and BMJ Learning) to provide a peer review of Professor James Baraniuk’s document on “CFS”, to which I agreed. My comments below relate to the version sent to me. In my opinion, it indicated how dangerous the medical education programme about ME/CFS is in the UK. This was borne out by my face-to-face discussion with Professor Baraniuk himself on 1st June 2018 in London: he confirmed to me that his original report had already been sent by the BMJ to other referees and that he had received 156 comments which he was instructed had to be incorporated in his report. It was plainly obvious that those comments had been included in the version sent to me. Professor Baraniuk assured me that I should go ahead and respond as I wished, so it seems he knew his report was not as he intended it to be. In telephone discussions with the BMJ Section Editor, it was stressed to me that the BMJ had to have (quote) “equality”.
     
    MSEsperanza, Hutan, rvallee and 15 others like this.
  2. Sbag

    Sbag Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    2,028
    Cracking critique!
     
  3. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,316
    Likes Received:
    39,201
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    Woah BMJ really taking the piss with Baraniuk there - makes me wonder if he considered taking his name off it. When it was published it was obviously a weird hotch potch with some reasonable bits and other dodgy stuff.
     
    inox likes this.
  4. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,900
    Likes Received:
    18,140
    This needs to be widely disseminated.
    I am considering sending to my GP.
     
  5. Sasha

    Sasha Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,292
    Likes Received:
    20,905
    Location:
    UK
    Much as I appreciate the effort that clearly went into this, I think that at 18 pages, this is only likely to be read by the ultra-keen and therefore not the ideal advocacy document.
     
    Simone, MEMarge, Andy and 1 other person like this.
  6. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,099
    Likes Received:
    40,049
    7 pages (of actual review material) of an extremely well thought through review, shows just what a mess it was that he had to review.

    Now that is as succinct and legible a summing up of that aspect you could hope for I think.

    Excellent review!
     
    ScottTriGuy, Inara, andypants and 4 others like this.
  7. Sasha

    Sasha Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,292
    Likes Received:
    20,905
    Location:
    UK
    His review comments continue in what I now see is a long appendix but anyone faced with this is going to think they've got to read a review 18 pages long. I think a brief contents list with page numbers would help.
     
    andypants, Simone, Andy and 1 other person like this.
  8. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,464
    Likes Received:
    129,837
    Location:
    UK
    It is largely good, and very worrying that the best practice document is so wrong.

    But this part concerns me:

    As I understand it we do not have evidence that ME/CFS is always and only a post enteroviral or post vaccination disease. Many of us fit all the definitions including CCC, yet our ME started after a different type of infection. I am concerned at this narrowing of the possible causes of ME.

    I am also concerned that his list of biological evidence is not all fully replicated and accurate. Overstating the case may lead to dismissal of his arguments.

    However, he is right about this:

     
  9. Inara

    Inara Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,714
    Likes Received:
    11,083
    Under "peer reviewers" there are Disclosures. Of course, only Hooper has disclosures... :rolleyes:
     
    rvallee and Invisible Woman like this.
  10. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,297
    Likes Received:
    9,206
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    In skim-only mode, but just saw that on the BMJ Best Practice website presenting Baraniuk's summary both the IOM Report (2015) and the CDC‘s recommendations on "Symptoms and Diagnosis" are linked as "guidelines" on the right side. In the category "resources" the guideline section is only accessible with subscription, though.

    Also, the "patients‘ leaflets" linked on the right side, one on "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" and one on "Depression in Adults", are only accessible with subscription.

    Could anyone who has access to "BMJ Best Practice" give us some information about the guidelines, patient leaflets and "evidence" presented as "resources" for "Best Practice" for "CFS/ME"? (documents' titles, authors?)

    Edit: Just realized that this thread's topic is Hooper's review, not the BMJ Best Practice content per se, so I'll copy my post on the thread "Sources of online information for medical professionals".

    Edit 2: correct link to the other thread
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2019
    Hutan, andypants and Sly Saint like this.

Share This Page