Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Jun 17, 2011.
* I gave each line its own paragraph
As I put the time into reading it, I thought I'd write a little on it.
Definition of improvement:
It was interesting that the improved group did tend to score higher on quite a few measures even though only this one measure was used.
Definition of somatization/somatizers seems far from exact:
The questions are something like the following (I was looking at a list for the SCL-90-R but I couldn't copy from that so I amalgamated two)
, the authors (i.e. a different team) used this subscale (i.e. the scores from these questions) as a measure of physical symptoms.
the "somatization" scale sounds like it should have been named a "severe" group instead
Another depressing study set up to confirm the authors own views.
Thanks for digging this out. Could you say what the sample size was, how many improved and how big was the improvement?
As far as I can tell, 4 of these 12 directly relate to the case definition for CFS:
So severity of these might well be expected to correlate with reduced chance of improving.
I find this discussion of outcome measures interesting. It is of course slanted to justify what they did - but whether it's practical or not, I think the bit in bold is interesting:
The also touched on this in the introduction:
(Bascially what they seem to be talking about is a regression line - where they may have different numbers of data points depending on how many appointments people went)
They do admit that the model may not be that useful in clinical practice:
I would say they may/will probably need to measure some biological factors.
Possible error in Table 2
I just E-mailed this:
Blimey, that's unusually honest of them. And thanks for posting the info I asked for as well as you other comments. It's an interesting-looking study but my brain is a little faded at the moment.
Just from the bits Dolphin pulled out, there were a few parts where they didn't seem to try to cover up the limitations of their work. I like!
re the Somatization scale: My score would really depend upon how much I done in that two week period. If I'd had to push myself, and make myself feel worse, I'd score much higher than if I'd had a couple of weeks of being able to set my own activity levels to an amount I was comfortable with. I'd have thought that many here would be the same.
Yes, and these aren't always under people's own control - different people can have more external pressures of one sort or another (i.e. it's not simply an "internal" matter everyone can always control).
My guess, based on the way some of the limitations were written it and their placing, is that a reviewer prompted them (they have the feel of stuff that is stuck in a bit). But these aren't the worst team of authors either.
That would be a shame. I'm always excited by hints of intellectual honest in CFS papers. (I can't believe how low my expectations are for CFS research!)
Just been looking at the SCL-90 Somatization subscale myself and wondered if your list was from a source or your assumption having read the list of all 90 Qs?
I wasn't sure about the 'lump in throat' question as a somatic item and wondered about these:
Heart pounding or racing
Trembling or shaking
But it can't be all of them! Any thoughts welcome.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.