Discussion in 'ME/CFS research' started by Andy, Aug 5, 2020.
Open access, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/8/2531
This is a Fukuda criteria CFS study with no controls that started in 2013.
The results look confusing to me. Seems like just a random scatter. But then I'm only able to scan papers and not read the detail so hopefully it's me that's at fault. Some interesting ideas on measuring autonomic parameters to try and subgroup..........
I like to look at scatter plots and data tables. This is table A1. Can anyone explain to me why they didn't throw out so many lines items where the standard deviation is greater that the mean?
This may account for the fact that nearly 20% did not report PEM. At least this was recorded and it turns out that the non-PEM cases cluster in some of the subgroups. Which could possibly tell us something but what that might be isn't further analysed. Seems like a missed opportunity. I'd like to see more studies looking at Fukuda-with-PEM compared to Fukuda-without-PEM.
But as for using the CFQ! Admittedly just as one amongst other instruments but still, can we please please please just press delete on that thing!
Confusing all right. Those tables just make my brain go crosseyed.
Also confusing, they decided their results suggested the following subgroups (some of which are very small):
sympathetic with dysautonomia
The names 'sympathetic' and 'sympathetic with dysautonomia' are confusing. The group called 'sympathetic with dysautonomia' has autonomic symptoms both subjectively and objectively. Whereas the (very small) group called just 'sympathetic' report few autonomic symptoms (subjectively) but they still have lots of objective markers of dysautonomia. So better names would have been 'sympathetic with symptomatic dysautonomia' and 'sympathetic with asymptomatic dysautonomia'.
Ignoring the problems of validity with the small numbers, this observation that some people experience subjective dysautonomia symptoms and others do not despite both groups having objective markers could maybe fit in with that recent study showing low brain perfusion even in patients not reporting OI?
Whoops! Did a GET Study Just Explain Why It DOESN’T Work in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS)?
by Cort Johnson | Nov 16, 2020 |
Separate names with a comma.