so just stating what the medical profession should actually try to do their damn jobs rather than negating their responsibility to the patients who pay them very generously for the privilege of being abandoned.Conclusion Quality principles for a long Covid service should include ensuring access to care, reducing burden of illness, taking clinical responsibility and providing continuity of care, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation, evidence-based investigation and management, and further development of the knowledge base and clinical services.
Sounds about right. Definitely not all, probably most, but not by much, somewhere around 50-70%. Exertion intolerance is rarely recorded in those studies but I think it is likely to be the most common symptom. Unfortunately like brain fog there is no formal medical term so it's in the category of answers missed because the question isn't asked.My impression is that the percentage of long covid patients with PEM is not insignificant, maybe as high as 50%. That's just my estimate based on what patients are saying in newspaper, blogs, TV and social media.
What impression do you all have?
Basically when it comes to discriminated diseases it always comes down to the same, which 100% applies here:so just stating what the medical profession should actually try to do their damn jobs rather than negating their responsibility to the patients who pay them very generously for the privilege of being abandoned.
A preprint has not been peer reviewed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preprint. However, authors can post the "author accepted manuscript" on public servers eg. at their university to ensure immediate open access prior to publication, and if the journal is paywalled. In which case they have been peer reviewed but are not formatted in the pretty journal style or proof read. So, this paper has not been peer reviewed.And no, this is not a preprint.
A preprint is a peer reviewed paper that is released prior to printing, as a reprint is released after printing.
A preprint has not been peer reviewed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preprint.
Trish G actually asked on Twitter for volunteers to review it to ensure a fast publication. That's a pretty dodgy thing to do isn't it?
This is just plain bad. I hope it is rejected for publication because stuff like this is totally unhelpful.
I am used to manuscripts like this from therapists doing higher degrees wanting some papers for their CV but to have something like this from someone who is both a professor and a member of a guideline committee shows just how broken things are.
The first key problem that makes the whole piece a nonsense is the complete lack of any control over sampling. It seems they used twitter and 'snowballing' rather than any systematic method of recruitment.
So they end up asking for people with weird symptoms after Covid and sure they get a mix of the weirdest. The symptoms may well be diverse and difficult to explain but this to me is the same methodology that the MESpine group uses to generate totally meaningless and misleading data.
the second key problem is that the study is used as an excuse to recommend a care package - when there is nothing in the paper that tells us what that should be.
The whole thing demonstrates just how much of a Wizard of Oz the Cochrane and Co brigade really is. This is like school kids putting on a mock election that has bio relation to reality. The scary bit is that this sort of thing is likely to be used for healthcare policy.
I give up.
A preprint has not been peer reviewed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preprint. However, authors can post the "author accepted manuscript" on public servers eg. at their university to ensure immediate open access prior to publication, and if the journal is paywalled. In which case they have been peer reviewed but are not formatted in the pretty journal style or proof read. So, this paper has not been peer reviewed.
Trish G actually asked on Twitter for volunteers to review it to ensure a fast publication. That's a pretty dodgy thing to do isn't it?
I didn't get the call as she has blocked me, so I couldn't even put my name forward as a reviewer! Perhaps I should contact the journal and suggest myself! TG is best mates with the recently doubly beknighted power couple Sir Simon and Lady Clare, so I guess that explains the lack of acknowledgment of people with ME.
haha - probably! Sorry about that...I did wonder if reposting several of your tweets a few months ago @Caroline Struthers was the reason I am also blocked by Trish G!!
I hardly ever tweet anything original, just retweet others' comments.
yes, that makes perfect sense! So the "author accepted manuscript" is today's equivalent of a preprint. Trish's paper should be called a wannaprint...any other suggestions on what to call it?!Sorry but history has been rewritten. Thirty years ago a preprint was something you sent people after peer review and acceptance. It was before printing - printing having been guaranteed. It was actually on a piece of paper, usually produced with an ink jet printer or daisy wheel if you were lucky, and send by mail. How can an un-peer reviewed MS be a preprint if printing has not even been offered!! It is a bit like having a trailer to a film that has not yet been financed.
The request for offers to review simply reflects the fact that Greenhalgh lives in some nepotistic circle where this sort of behaviour is discussed at drinks receptions or other cosy venues. What she does not realise is that it is a circle that has no intellectual standing, just noise level - a bit like Astrology Weekly.
And still no comment that I can see from Greenhalgh on yesterday's release of
https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/themedreview/living-with-covid19/
Living with Covid19
A dynamic review of the evidence around ongoing Covid19 symptoms (often called Long Covid).
No comment from Trish Greenhalgh yet on today's
HIHR Living with Covid19 - A dynamic review of the evidence around ongoing Covid19 symptoms (often called Long Covid)