Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Firestormm, Sep 21, 2013.
Especially interesting, perhaps, given the current climate:
Wow - look at the red flags identified in that paper that are present in the IOM's GWI panel (my bold), and those are only the ones that I know of:
Box 1: Red flags that should raise substantial skepticism among guideline readers (and medical journals)
Sponsor(s) is a professional society that receives substantial industry funding;
Sponsor is a proprietary company, or is undeclared or hidden
Committee chair(s) have any financial conflict*
Multiple panel members have any financial conflict*
Any suggestion of committee stacking that would pre-ordain a recommendation regarding a controversial topic
No or limited involvement of an expert in methodology in the evaluation of evidence
No external review
No inclusion of non-physician experts/patient representative/community stakeholders
Nielk, medfeb - interesting, and the IOM is cited in that paper as being big on good process for guidelines (!).
I guess one of my concerns with this will be that GET and CBT are 'scientifically sound' according to their proponents who are - unfortunately - listened to; and until something better comes along with the 'same rigour' behind it - we could be stuck in the US right where we are in the UK with 'management strategies' for ME. But, I think it also gives accord to the need for consultation before guidelines are published - though I haven't read the paper it alludes to - and this would include (I sincerely hope) disease experts, healthcare experts, patients and patient representatives.
Really crappy night. So I'm not doing anything more today... except trying to
Sasha we x-d posts
I think this is a key point to push with the HHS/IOM and may well gain more traction.
Thanks - I'll tag it for Neilk and medfeb.
Thanks for the heads up on that, Sasha
Ta Fire, I saw that the working group report they mentioned was also available. I posted it in a new thread here: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...delines-a-tool-for-protecting-patients.25424/
So what Group(s) or Organization(s) does Weasle & Whitewash and those belonging to their school of thought belong to? Because I'll bet a dollar to a donut that they'll try to insert themselves Professionaly into the development process of said proposed group and guidelines it uses.
This is outstanding, Firestormm! Great find!
No problem Jennie. I might actually find the time to read it myself soon
Interesting article. If I count right,, the Dutch guideline on CFS (CBO, 2013) scores 8 out of 8 red flags.
But evidence-based guidelines, defined as is, remain primitive no matter what. We need model-based guidelines.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.