I think the microscopy images did dominate discussion however — they certainly did on social media. With the initial paper
we were interested in the proteomics findings being significant. (As above in this thread and others, findings need to be replicated with different techniques in vivo).
I think we would agree with that.
The paper states —
The following people conducted the editorial process for this article:
• Sign-off Editors (final editorial decision): Dr Paul Hine, CIDG; Professor Lise J Estcourt, Cochrane Haematology
• Managing Editor (selected peer reviewers, collated peer reviewer comments, provided editorial guidance to authors, edited the article): Dr Deirdre Walshe, CIDG;
• Copy Editor (copy editing and production): Lisa Winer, Cochrane Central Production Service;
• Peer reviewers (provided comments and recommended an editorial decision):
◦ Ingeborg Welters, MD/PhD, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Professor Alan J Carson, University of Edinburgh (clinical/ content review)
◦ Mohamad Whdan (consumer review)
◦ Marty Chaplin, Statistical Editor (CIDG) (statistical review)
◦ Ina Monsef, Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Germany (search review)
Haematologists are well-founded peer reviewers for the basic science aspects of this research. What expertise does Alan Carson bring? To cover this solitary line?
Which references
Why the hypothesis of psychological mechanisms in long COVID is worth considering (2023, Journal of Psychosomatic Research)
