CFS chapter in Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine

Dolphin

Dolphin

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Last edited:
Its page 455. I think that it’s Been discussed here before or else I’m over familiar with Childers usual tripe, it just seems same old. She mainly quotes Wessely, white etc as her evidence base, completely treats the illness outcomes as largely determined by beliefs and behaviour and from onset immediately reduces it to fatigue, the important factor being of six months + duration, not other symptoms or PEM.
I don’t see how Wessely and Sharpe can legitimately claim their group long recognised the biological basis of CFS when their colleague is writing this.
 
Changes:
  • reference to the Cochrane review and the PACE trial in the treatment part
  • new paragraph about the mechanism of change:
upload_2019-4-7_15-46-33.png
Relies on Chalder's research, so just a big joke

Another ridiculous claim (already in the former edition though): (even with their biased methodology, there is no support for that claim)
upload_2019-4-7_15-48-6.png

  • Addition of a sentence in the Prognosis part to say that yeah! recovery is possible thanks to the amazing work of Peter White (and his outcome switches)
upload_2019-4-7_15-52-14.png

That's all I could spot.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-4-7_15-45-12.png
    upload_2019-4-7_15-45-12.png
    40.6 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
Anyone else noticed that "The hypothesis was confirmed" is just there all on its own with no supporting evidence?

That's not how any of this works. The idea that the hypothesis was confirmed is absurd. It's so weak that even Sharpe pretends they don't have one and were only comparing "treatments".

At this point the failure isn't even theirs. What kind of editor just allows a blunt opinion stated as fact? They're basically allowed to say whatever they want and never have to show anything for it. Says who? Me, of course. My own research. Or this research, from my longtime colleague, which cites my research. And the circle jerk lives on.
 
rvallee said:
Anyone else noticed that "The hypothesis was confirmed" is just there all on its own with no supporting evidence?

That's not how any of this works. The idea that the hypothesis was confirmed is absurd. It's so weak that even Sharpe pretends they don't have one and were only comparing "treatments".

At this point the failure isn't even theirs. What kind of editor just allows a blunt opinion stated as fact? They're basically allowed to say whatever they want and never have to show anything for it. Says who? Me, of course. My own research. Or this research, from my longtime colleague, which cites my research. And the circle jerk lives on.
Click to expand...

The vast majority are currently trying to distance themselves from the entire fear avoidance theory. You will even find some claiming there is no such thing. Luckily a quick google for 'Pace Trial Lancet' is enough to prove them wrong.

Of course the fear avoidance theory isn't just some theory, it was the entire foundation for the bio-psycho-social approach to CFS.

I for one applaud Chalder for keeping the fear avoidance theory alive. May the ''confirmed'' hypothesis live on so it can be used as ammunition against whoever advocates CBT / GET for patients.
 
Last edited:
Coding of "Neurasthenia" in classification and terminology systems:

ICD-10:

In ICD-10 (endorsed by the Forty-third World Health Assembly in 1990), postviral fatigue syndrome (G93.3) is specified as an Exclusion under F48.0 Neurasthenia in ICD-10 Volume 1: The Tabular List:

https://icd.who.int/browse10/2016/en#/F48.0

Chronic fatigue syndrome is indexed to the G93.3 Tabular List code.


Extract: NHS Digital, National Clinical Standards ICD-10 5th Edition, Page 84:

https://hscic.kahootz.com/gf2.ti/f/...oding_Standards_ICD10_reference_book_2019.pdf

clinical-standards-5th-edition.png



ICD-11:

For ICD-11, the legacy entity Neurasthenia has been subsumed and replaced along with most of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders with the new single category, 6C20 Bodily distress disorder (with three coded-for severity specifiers).


SNOMED CT:

SNOMED CT is a standardized electronic terminology system for recording and sharing symptoms, diagnoses, clinical findings, procedures etc in primary and secondary care and across other health care settings.

Since April 2018, SNOMED CT UK Edition has been the mandatory terminology system for use in NHS primary care, replacing the Read Code (CTV3) terminology which is now retired. SNOMED CT UK Edition is scheduled for adoption across all NHS clinical settings by 2020.


For the SNOMED CT terminology system, the SCTID Concept term Neurasthenia and its associated terms were retired ("Inactive") from the terminology system a number of years ago.

Although the various SNOMED CT national editions absorbed the retirement of this Concept term in their next releases, the Netherlands Edition had retained the term "neurasthenie" under the chronischevermoeidheidssyndroom (CVS) Synonyms list, coded to the SCTID: 52702003 CVS Concept code and marked as exclusive to the Netherlands national edition.

In October 2018, @mecvsnieuws on Twitter approached Pim Volkert (Coördinator terminologie bij Nictiz) with a request for retirement of the term neurasthenie from the Synonyms list for Concept SCTID: 52702003 chronischevermoeidheidssyndroom for consistency with the International Edition, with other national extensions, and with the WHO's ICD-10.

As reported in this thread, this request and accompanying rationale was accepted and approved for implementation in the March 31, 2019 release.

For the March 2019 release of the SNOMED CT Netherlands Edition, the term neurasthenie has been deleted from under the chronischevermoeidheidssyndroom (CVS) Synonyms list and marked as "Inactive".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom