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 8th April 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

British Journal of Sports Medicine invites submissions addressing PACE limitations

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS news' started by Indigophoton, May 6, 2018.

  1. Indigophoton

    Indigophoton Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    In response to a request on twitter, following the Montreal conference, the BJSM has invited papers (subject to the usual peer review) addressing issues with the PACE trial.

    Here's the full conversation for context (and for those not on twitter),





  2. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

  3. Graham

    Graham Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    I'd be happy with that, but it isn't just the three of us: as with most of these papers, many key authors prefer to remain unnamed. I'll mention it to them and get back to you.
  4. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    I agree with this, if there are no problems re @Graham's post above.

    I have just re-read the paper, and think it is very effective and very important, because it is what I think of as a 'bridging' paper - bridges the gap between highly scientific papers, and lightweight 'explanatory' articles. This paper goes into enough depth to be meaningful to scientists and doctors and hopefully motivate them to dig deeper, whilst also being digestible to people less qualified (including nurses maybe, ambulance crews, etc) and maybe motivate to want to better understand - people such as myself, but who currently have no real understanding or awareness of what is going on. It is also very good at explaining the 'why' and not just the 'what'. Spreading the word to an ever-wider demographic.
  5. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    It’s nice the journal is accepting papers with more educated viewpoints, but at what point would they do something like publish an expression of concern?

    It’s a known problem in science that even when there are later papers moving things forward, earlier erroneous papers continue to get cited.

    Is there some systematic way outdated studies can be flagged up?

Share This Page