1. Patients launch a $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
California 2014: IACFS/ME Day Three: Translating Science into Clinical Care: 22 March 2014
Day Three, and Searcher continued to deliver the goods. We hear about the PANDORA national survey results, a very big familial case study from Spain, results from the Canadian Community Health Survey, more results from epidemiological studies (and a look at treatments and...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Chronic Fatigue & CFS valid clinical entities across countries/healthcare settings?

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by oceanblue, Jan 27, 2012.

  1. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,402
    Likes:
    4,513
    Yes, one should always be a little wary of the categories in factor analysis. The headings can sometimes make things sound more neat than they actually are or, to put it another way, as you point out in this occasion, the elements may not neatly fit under the arbitrarily named heading for the factor.
    WillowJ likes this.
  2. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,402
    Likes:
    4,513
    (Speculating) Peer review is generally an activity that one doesn't get paid for. Given that expert statisticians would only make up a small percentage of all scientists, they would be greatly overworked if a statistician was required for each paper.

    On biomedcentral, open access reviews are the norm/very common.

    Each reviewer seems to be asked whether it needs a statistical review. This is the normal response:
    I think a problem may be that people are reluctant to admit they don't know something properly e.g. some sort of statistical analysis technique. So when something seems ok/the authors "sell it" well, they let it through.

    I agree with you that it is frustrating.
  3. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes:
    2,084
    WA, USA
    Sorry, I was unclear. The recommendations (don't test for b-z, use CBT/GET, etc.) are based on conflating CFS with CF. Review papers and Meta-analysis using Fukuda-CFS and Oxford-CFS and Empiric-CFS and Hickie-CFS and Holmes-CFS, for that matter, (and on rare occasions, Canadian-ME/CFS) as if all of those referred to the same kind of patient (and when used by various groups who may apply them differently, referred to the same kind of patient), when in fact some of them are just plain CF (and sometimes PF, <6 months), regardless of what name they put on the criteria and the studies.
  4. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,063
    Likes:
    4,759
    Just going through this thread, and noticed that this earlier paper is no longer on-line.

    Looks like it was taken down:

    http://www.vipbg.vcu.edu/~nathan/publications/

    To be honest, this stuff is making my head swim, but I thought I'd point this out in case anyone had a copy that should be put on-line.
  5. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,063
    Likes:
    4,759
    Arrgh... I was just about to make exactly the same post again. I didn't remember any of this thread! I only replied last May. Oh well. Thanks for the interesting points OB.
  6. David Egan

    David Egan Hermes33

    Messages:
    37
    Likes:
    66
    thats very interesting stuff.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page