Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia and Connective Tissue Disorders' started by Sly Saint, Dec 30, 2020.
This strikes me as being just a fishing expedition. They haven't said why they want to do clinical trials, so they probably just want to test CBT and GET on people with fibromyalgia, and possibly increase the use of psychiatric drugs on patients.
This is of no value to anyone. It does not inform about anything. Doesn't advance knowledge in any way shape or form.
So what's the point of doing stuff like this again and again? Complete waste of resources.
31 clinical epidemiological studies of fibromyalgia yielded the most common co-morbidity is depression, and then further incidences of PTSD, bipolar, etc.
My question is: since about 1/3 of American women have a history of abuse in childhood or rape in their teens and beyond, none of these associations (i.e.PTSD) surprise me.
And, I would have to see how representative the samples are in the 31 studies. Are they primarily taken from tertiary care centers (major hospitals, sometime university connected medical centers) that tend to treat the most complex patients?
Abstract says: Lifetime or concurrent depression diagnosis...63% in fibro pts. Not surprising. Depression is very common in women at some point (divorce, death of a close relative, a pet, job loss, illness, yes..illness). Fibromyalgia is very depressing and involves multiple role losses and depression is expected, imo, until successful adaptation occurs, incrementally.
The abstract concludes:
"Addressing the presence of these comorbid health conditions in clinical trials of treatments for FM would increase the generalizability and real-world applicability of FM research."
What does that mean, really? More funding opportunities?
any trawl of historic medical notes will not give you evidence of anything other than a snapshot of the doctors subjective opinion of the patient . considering the frequent post i have seen about the abysmal record keeping and constant misdiagnosis by medical professionals i would not come to any conclusion whatsoever based on this kind work .
I just realized that basically medicine is failing at sanitizing inputs. Oh boy. Now that's just about the most elementary technical failure out there. Oof. It's different but basically comes out the same.
Basically in software development, whenever you deal with user input you have to sanitize it to prevent nasty stuff. This is usually how hacks happen: unsanitized input that inject code where there shouldn't be. This is the most basic aspect of security, the first line of defense: assume all inputs are invalid and clean them up. Also: assume they're wrong and validate all the things. Twice, ideally. It's also why it's so expensive to deal with large data sets: data sets are only valid as their integrity, how accurate they are. Any serious process does layers of sanity checks and validation to make sure the input is actually accurate.
GIGO. GIGO is what you get when you assume infallibility of input. Holy hubris. Never trust inputs, people put all sort of nonsense there.
Separate names with a comma.