This sounds like a very valuable exercise and one I want to support (I plan to look at registering with the CFS/ME registry), but
@NelliePledge raises an interesting point about whether including a study would be seen as an endorsement. Especially as we have witnessed over recent years here in the UK that the ethical approval system does not always work for ME/CFS studies.
The continued use of the Oxford Criteria makes participating in studies using it a waste of time and energy for subjects given the results can not be meaningfully interpreted as actually having any implication for ME. A significant number of researchers, particularly those invested in the BPS model seem to have problems distinguishing between the symptom of chronic fatigue linked to many conditions and the specific condition Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. However it is not reasonable to expect all potential research subjects to be aware of the implications of the different research definitions of ME/CFS.
At least one relatively recent study, namely Prof Crawford's School Absence study, avoided ethical aproval entirely on spurious grounds, even though there were serious potential ethical risks involved. In this example children and their parents/guardians could hardly be expected to understand the technical problems in its oversight without more information than that available from the research team, especially given prolonged school absence leaves parents/guardians fearing the risk of prosecution making them less likely to question what was happening.
Then there are the studies, primarily associated with promoting excercise, usually in the form of GET, that carry serious risk of real and lasting harm to participants. Given the relevant researchers' biased understanding of the nature of ME and their failure to take into account a whole section of the research literature from view points differing to theirs, such studies ignore thousands of other peer reviewed reports making them deliberately negligent. Historically these studies have failed to adequately record adverse effects and one such study, FITNET as pointed out above, is currently recruiting significant numbers of children and adolescents. Further specifically with FITNET the recent promotion of this study by Red Whale has served to prejudice potential subjects, undermining any potential value of their results indicating a worrying ignorance of experimental design and making participation a waste of scarce energy as well as potentially injurious to health.
How does the CFS/ME registry plan to police studies it supports/facilitates?
A further more trivial point, the name for our condition that the CFS/ME registry uses is contentious. Though it could be argued that any potential name would for some be contentious, using CFS/ME, rather than ME or ME/CFS preferred by the majority of patient organisations, will only serve to alienate potential participants as it indicates an affiliation to the discredited (at least within the patient community, but increasingly more widely) sections of British academia that have given grossly uncritical support for the harmful BPS school of researchers.
[Corrected for grammar.]