Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Yes, he will has just posted the wrong link into his tweet. Nice to see he's a reader of the forum!
Indeed.
Welcome Simon, I hope you enjoy your stay on this forum! *waves*
Last edited:
Yes, he will has just posted the wrong link into his tweet. Nice to see he's a reader of the forum!
This is one reason mixed MUS studies will likely have few objective outcome measures that might theoretically be used in trials of ME/CFS alone. For example, actigraphy wouldn’t say much about whether an intervention has helped Irritable Bowel Syndrome.Sometimes it's hard to find a way around the problem of subjective outcomes in unblinded studies. Because I assume it's not always possible to use objective outcomes. Suppose you have a psychological intervention that aims to change the mental wellbeing of patients, nothing more. That would be an outcome that is plausible but difficult to put into objective measures and thus to measure. I suppose science simply isn't capable of measuring these kinds of effects yet...
What’s the Friedman study?Yeah, I agree with this. So far there were only some very small studies by Black & McCully and Friedman who both seemed to indicate that there's an activity ceiling for ME/CFS patients. https://me-pedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling_effect
Sorry I meant Friedberg and the actimeter studies he did:What’s the Friedman study?
this patient largely overcame his initially reported fear of triggering symptom exacerbations. Yet his concern about exceeding the maximum prescribed weight lifting levels appeared to be realistic because scheduled attempts to exceed these levels consistently triggered symptom flare-ups. In addition, the work-related 4-week relapse revealed an apparent upper limit on his ability to work. This suggests that eradication of a fear-based activity avoidance will facilitate functional improvements up to a point, beyond which a more biologically based mechanism of symptom generation may be involved
These might be useful for people who want to get information quickly on studies, though ideally checked the original papers if one has time.*Significant difference found compared to other/control group(s).
^Significant effect found compared to just one group (if more than one existed).
&Significant difference between baseline and final assessment within group.
#Increase over time from baseline to final assessment, significant difference between groups.
Subjective outcome measures in black; Objective measures are bold, italic and underlined.
I have no idea what they are taking about with regards to the Deale et al. study.In general, the interventions were found to be effective according the study results, as most studies (n = 15) found CBT and/or GET, either in the original form or an adapted therapy version, a positive treatment for ME/CFS patients. Three studies (Deale et al., 2001; Nunez et al., 2011; O’Dowd et al., 2006) did not consider CBT and/or GET directly suitable for treatment.
Deale A, Husain K, Chalder T, et al. (2001) Longterm outcome of cognitive behaviour therapy versus relaxation therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: A 5-year follow-up study. The American Journal of Psychiatry 158: 2038–2042.