NICE guideline on ME/CFS: robust advice based on a thorough review of the evidence, 2024, Barry et al.

Kitty said:
I bet Susie Dent could come up with some corkers.

If I had an account, I might even ask her! She's on Twix as @susie_dent, for anyone who doesn't know her.
Click to expand...

The lexicographer on British gameshow Countdown and on the comedy version of that same show. Also the reason I have a vague understanding of what a lexicographer is, someone that knows a lot about words.
 
-edit- ignore my post, it's pre coffee. - end edit-

Wait a second... It's also saying there are no rapid responses now .
Sigh, time to write another letter - they sure do like erasing our voice.
 
Last edited:
"Choosing the wrong trial end-points
-----------------------------------------------
A major concern is selective reporting. For example, data from trial primary end-points at 12 months follow-up was left out. This led to the incorrect conclusion that neither CBT nor GET are effective treatments. We re-analysed the data, using Cochrane methods. We compared GET with usual medical care at 12 months, and found there were double the number of people feeling “much better” or “very much better” after GET (RR 2.29, 95%CI 1.69 to 3.10; 3 trials, 464 participants); (paper submitted for publication.)"

Oh good!
 
InitialConditions said:
Garner and co have written a rapid response to this paper:

https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/95/7/671.responses#the-revised-nice-me-cfs-guideline-neither-robust-nor-thorough”

"We conclude by calling for these guidelines to be withdrawn, the analyses of data to be redone, and the guideline recommendations to be re-formulated."

I suspect there's a lot going on behind the scenes to get this guideline withdrawn.
Click to expand...

So disheartening. I immediately think this needs a response. Is there any point?
 
InitialConditions said:
Garner and co have written a rapid response to this paper:

https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/95/7/671.responses#the-revised-nice-me-cfs-guideline-neither-robust-nor-thorough”

"We conclude by calling for these guidelines to be withdrawn, the analyses of data to be redone, and the guideline recommendations to be re-formulated."

I suspect there's a lot going on behind the scenes to get this guideline withdrawn.
Click to expand...

I find it rather humorous that it was Garner himself who has full of apraise for pacing during his "Long-Covid journey". So it is pacing, scuba-diving, CBT or does it all not really matter when the majority recover from post-viral fatigue?
 
Don't forget they did a lot of challenging of the evidence review before NICE made and published its new guidelines. Its head of evidence review got involved and endorsed the findings. None of the objetions raised above seem to address the core issue of using subjective outcomes in unblinded studies (where long-term outcomes are null and objective outcomes likewise, both supporting the likelihood of self-report bias).

BPS advocates have had over a decade to address these issues yet continue to duck them.
 
Ridiculous that the rapid response is free to read but the Barry et al article is behind a paywall.

Notable that SW is a signatory.

From COIs:

“SW reports honoraria from two talks on psychological impacts of COVID to Swiss Re during the pandemic, but neither covered CFS nor Long Covid.”​

But no mention of Sharpe’s talk(s?) to Swiss Re on Long Covid: https://www.swissre.com/dam/jcr:788...vid19-impacts-presentation-michael-sharpe.pdf
 
Chalder et al write:

“Yet, a systematic review of trials of CBT showed that the presence or absence of PEM made no difference to the positive results of this treatment. (6)”
​
Apart from the word “positive” that statement is almost right. What PACE showed us is that GET and CBT don’t work however loosely or badly ME/CFS is defined.

[edit: typos]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom