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 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

BMJ Management of post-acute Covid-19 in primary care, 2020, Greenhalgh et al

Discussion in 'Long Covid research' started by obeat, Aug 12, 2020.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Two more Rapid Reponses

    One of interest (first two paragraphs) from Diane O'Leary
    https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026/rapid-responses
    ________________

    Discussion of this Rapid Response has moved here:
    Diagnosis of ME and the use of the labels ME and CFS.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2020
    Frankie, inox, Kitty and 9 others like this.
  2. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
  3. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,296
    Location:
    Canada
    Ah, yes, Fiona Godlee is definitely on the case. A very relevant person to speak about this. Totally.
     
    JemPD, MEMarge, Kitty and 5 others like this.
  4. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,142
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    Hoping some of the sensible researchers and health professionals will join in on this.
     
    JemPD, Kitty, Andy and 1 other person like this.
  5. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,870
    Location:
    UK
    You may be interested to see the latest Rapid Response to this article
    https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026/rapid-responses
    links all the rapid responses.
    https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026/rr-7
    takes you directly to mine.

    Here's the beginning of it, the rest at the link:

     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2020
  6. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,134
    Location:
    Canada
    Really excellent. Thank-You Trish for your efforts.

    Is it me or am I sensing a thaw at the BMJ with regard to taking on information that accurately reflects the troubling situation we find ourselves in courtesy of the pysch 'experts?'
     
  7. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,637
    @Trish, thank you for the hard work and energy that went into this. The final draft reads really well.

    Let’s hope sufficient numbers of the right people read it and take it seriously.
     
  8. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,870
    Location:
    UK
    I think rapid responses allow a wider range of points of view. They're not peer reviewed, and I gather almost all are published unless they are off topic, rubbish or libellous.
     
  9. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,324

    Well done, Trish! Excellent letter. I'll be sticking it out on Twitter shortly.

    At one point, BMJ Rapid Responses had a voting button, so you could "Like" a letter - appears that BMJ have stopped doing that unless it does not display for me in Opera, or it only shows when you are logged in to BMJ, which I'm not at the moment.

    Anyway, great to see your letter up there.
     
    MSEsperanza, Anna H, Kitty and 9 others like this.
  10. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,324
    Are you aware Trish, that a small selection of BMJ Rapid Responses are chosen for publication in the BMJ print edition? The print edition versions are indexed in PubMed. (I had an RR selected for the print edition in 2003.) This appeared about three weeks after the article to which it referred had been published in print. If yours were selected, you should expect to be contacted by the editors by email to discuss and agree any edits, confirm your address and email address. Would be great if yours were selected for the print edition.
     
    MSEsperanza, Anna H, Kitty and 16 others like this.
  11. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,296
    Location:
    Canada
    Some words to that but I doubt Godlee understands how they are directly linked to the whole Crawley/BPS affair she has utterly failed at handling. "Honouring the patient experience" is exactly what Godlee and her journal has helped to effectively block and disparage. Some patients are more equal than others, or something to that effect...
    Oh, is that a bad thing? Yes, yes it is. So why is Dr Godlee a strong proponent of doing exactly just that on some patients, not on others?

    https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3392
     
  12. JemPD

    JemPD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,915
    @Trish its brilliant that it got published there, well done, i hope it makes it into the print edition :hug::thumbup::emoji_clap:
     
  13. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,522
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    This thread is closed for the rest of the weekend, due to the availability of moderators. Apologies for any inconvenience.

    This thread is now open for on-topic replies.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2020
    Kitty, Nellie, Cheshire and 3 others like this.
  14. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,522
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    ahimsa, Kitty, MEMarge and 3 others like this.
  15. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,870
    Location:
    UK
    Andy likes this.
  16. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
  17. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,296
    Location:
    Canada
    How shocking that the ... *checks notes* ... current standard of care is being applied to ... *checks notes* ... sick people.

    I mean, yeah, it is, because that current standard is shockingly bad and harmful. But I have little patience for Greenhalgh's blatant hypocrisy here, it's very annoying. This is a house she agreed to build, and then defended. We warned it was rotten all the way down and leaking toxic spills everywhere.

    And now, what, she wants exemptions? The whole system that guaranteed failure should remain in place but we'll do an exception for this one situation that falls perfectly under the criteria? Hell no. What a completely broken mess of a system.

    You say you don't like your monster's work, Dr Frankenstein? But it is what you ordered it to do. Maybe the problem isn't the monster itself.
     
    Amw66, sebaaa, MSEsperanza and 10 others like this.
  18. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,134
    Location:
    Canada
    Sorry don't know how to embed a tweet. The above is a response from T Greenhalgh.

    It still seems a rather insensitive and clueless comment. It gives me the impression that few people outside those affected with illness really pay close attention to what it's all about yet think they know. Too busy no doubt.
     
    Mithriel, Joh, AR68 and 15 others like this.
  19. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,855
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    From the BMJ article:
    That paragraph on evidence on treatments for chronic fatigue seems not too bad to me at a first glance.

    OK, the authors could have added something about the difference betwee chronic fatigue and ME/CFS and they could have said that there is not only much debate and controversy but that Cochrane finally acknowledged much of the criticism and as a result there has been much controversy between the Cochrane editor in chief and the authors that worked on the revision of the review. And that the latter controversy nearly let to a withdrawal instead of the publication of the updated version.

    And that as a consequence to the still poor quality of the updated version, the new editor in chief set up a patient advisory group for a completely new update process.

    Or at least, the authors of the BMJ article could have actually referenced the patients' and others' responses and the announcement of the editor in chief instead of the old review from 2017 via Pubmed [= endnote 47].

    Of course, the reference to the old review might just be a typo.

    Edited for clarity.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2021
    MEMarge, Sean, Michelle and 3 others like this.

Share This Page