Child and adolescent chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: where are we now?, 2019, Segal et al

Andy

Andy

Senior Member (Voting rights)
They take the LP study seriously and the authors are from UCL and Great Ormond Street Hospital - this was enough for me to post in Psychosocial Research sub-forum rather than Biomedical.
Purpose of review

The current review aims to determine the recent evidence regarding cause, impact, effective treatment and prognosis of children and young people (CYP) affected by chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) at a time when the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines in the United Kingdom are being reviewed and more research is called for worldwide.

Recent findings CFS/ME is a debilitating illness with no clear cause. This review describes the heterogeneous clinical picture and the effects on the young person and family. Comorbidities such as mood disorders and pain are discussed including evidence for treatment. The various aetiological hypotheses are discussed and the precipitating factors identified. The evidence base is limited regarding effective treatment for CYP with CFS/ME, particularly the severely affected group. A large trial of online cognitive behavioural therapy with teenagers is being explored in the United Kingdom. The Lightning Process has been shown to be effective when added to medical care.

Summary Current evidence is hampered by different diagnostic criteria, the heterogeneous nature of the condition, and limited number of small studies. There is a clear need for more research and larger studies exploring the cause of and most effective treatment for CYP with CFS/ME.
Click to expand...
Paywall, https://journals.lww.com/co-pediatr...ild_and_adolescent_chronic_fatigue.98862.aspx
Not available via Sci Hub at time of post.
 
The history of GOSH and ME seems quite complex. Dillon's reporting of the epidemic there seemed very sensible, but he did later collaborate on a paper with Lask in about 1990 which gave pause for thought. I shall see if I can find it.
 
I am appalled that LP is singled out as 'shown to be effective' on the basis of a single badly run trial with subjective outcomes. And, as we know from David Tuller's work, included rolling a pilot study into the main trial and outcome switching, meaning it should never have been published.

And now that we have the data, there are so many missing and/or nonsensical results as to make it worthless.

And they single it out as the only successful treatment listed in the abstract. That seems to me criminally irresponsible.
 
Is it worth tweeting to Coyne with smile data ? He has quite a few followers.
@JenB - this is kids!
Dr Geraghty had been prolific recently too - I don't know if he can comment too?
A critique is needed of both
If these are the quality for an evidence base for NICE then not much positive change is likely
 
Trish said:
I am appalled that LP is singled out as 'shown to be effective' on the basis of a single badly run trial with subjective outcomes.

And they single it out as the only successful treatment listed in the abstract. That seems to me criminally irresponsible.
Click to expand...

I really had hoped that people with some sense of commitment to science would have been appalled by LP and from there, perhaps, understood that its 'success' is the reductio ad absurdum for the whole BPS approach. I wonder if they've actually bothered to read what it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom