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 Two: Translating Science into Clinical Care: 21 March 2014
Searcher kicks us off on Day Two, with an autoimmunity overview, then we are into immunology and cytokines, we hear from Susan Levine and the allergy-related signatures study done with Lipkin et. al, a talk about paravirus B-19, Mady Hornig from CFI with more research, John Chia who...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

IOM Panelists: Balance = Experts + Information – Bias

Discussion in 'Institute of Medicine (IOM) Government Contract' started by Nielk, Dec 17, 2013.

  1. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    4,823
    Likes:
    3,730
    Queens, NY
    Jennie Spotila of OccupyCFS - http://www.occupycfs.com/2013/12/16/iom-panelists-balance-experts-information-bias/

    excerpt:

    The overall panel balance is 53% known and 47% unknown to the ME/CFS community. None of us think this is sufficient, but we do not agree on what the right split would be. Some of us think the panel should be 100% ME/CFS experts; others think the addition of at least one or two more experts would be appropriate.

    Mary Dimmock has raised a very important point: in order to judge whether this panel is adequate, we have to think about the task. If this panel is going to create a case definition for the broader set of conditions that meet the various CFS criteria, then some might make the argument that this panel is appropriate. But if the panel is focused on the disease we described to the FDA in April, then Mary concludes that the panel needs more, and a broader cross-section, of ME/CFS experts and fewer psychologists. As Mary has reported, HHS and IOM have been vague in detailing which disease group is the focus of the panel.

    We’re faced with a chicken-egg dilemma: identifying the disease focus should happen prior to the panel selection, but instead we have a panel with a seemingly vague task focus. This panel composition seems to hold a middle ground: there are not an overwhelming number of ME/CFS experts, but neither are there an overwhelming number of experts in unexplained chronic fatigue, psychogenic models, or “other multi-symptom, complex disorders” as described in the Statement of Work. To our team, the key issue is bias.
    justinreilly likes this.
  2. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,948
    Likes:
    7,801
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    The process itself is biased, and the team cannot change that.

    The IOM has to include 25% non-experts, but it doesn't have to have 47%. Of those non-experts at least one should be a patient representative or representative of a patient organization, according to IOM standards. At least one is already a patient or former patient, so that part of the standards is covered.

    The UK Department of Work and Pensions has just released an "evidence-based" report endorsing the Work Capability Assessments as accurate. Clearly the report is flawed, and I do not think this is from personal bias, I think its from methodological bias.

    Such methodological bias ties the hands of researchers. The are not free to explore the topic, but are required to explore only certain things. This limits the available outcomes. We really need to see their contract, not the statement of work.
    justinreilly, WillowJ and Nielk like this.
  3. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    4,823
    Likes:
    3,730
    Queens, NY
    It is pretty problematic that they are taking so long to reveal the contract even though that information is supposed to be available to us. How can anyone fully endorse this study without seeing what the contract states?
  4. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,486
    Likes:
    1,136
    NYC (& RI)
    Allegria says: CFS is a "Neurasthenia Spectrum Disorder" (2012)!!

    …And Neurasthenia is a Psychiatric disorder, specifically a Somatoform disorder.

    I am posting this to its own thread bc I think it is that important, so I suggest that if you have a comment about this you do it there.

    The Neurasthenia paper of Alegria's Jennie cited, below, contains this important quote:
    "Likewise, further research is needed to examine the concordance of neurasthenia spectrum disorders (e.g., ICD-10 neurasthenia, CFS, CCMD-2 and CCMD-3 [these last two are the two Chinese Criteria] for neurasthenia) across non-clinical, population-based samples across cultural contexts [cf. 21, 23]." [Emphasis added]

    "Prevalence of Neurasthenia, Comorbidity, and Association with Impairment Among a Nationally Representative Sample of US Adults" (2012)

    http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...impairment-among-a-nationally-represen.27105/

    For this proposition, the authors cite the Pune, India study of neurasthenia spectrum disorders. I don't have access to the full article, but the abstract is damning enough:

    "Clinically significant fatigue or weakness is a common but understudied clinical problem in India...Alternative criteria sets used in different clinical contexts suggest a range of conditions constituting neurasthenia spectrum disorders (NSDs)...CFS, ICD-10 neurasthenia, DSM-IV draft criteria for neurasthenia, and CCMD-2 [ie Chinese Criteria] neurasthenia."

    This study was an attempt to see if the four "neurasthenia categories" mentioned, including CFS, were able to define idiopathic chronic fatigue well!

    Paralikar V, Sarmukaddam S, Agashe M, Weiss MG (2007) Diagnostic concordance of neurasthenia spectrum disorders in Pune, India. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 42:561–572

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-007-0196-x#page-1


    I do not have access to the other study cited:
    Starcevic V, Kelin K, Munjiza M (1996) Characteristics of neurasthenia: examination and cross-cultural applicability of ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for research. Eur J Psychiatry 11:289– 297


    Alegria repeatedly characterizes Neurasthenia as a Psychiatric disorder. In the final line of her Neurasthenia paper, Alegria calls Neurasthenia a Somatoform disorder:
    "Significantly, our study is timely given the attention being paid to the classification of somatoform disorders and comorbidity, as well as on the role of culture and social factors on the epidemiology of such disorders."
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2013
    Roy S likes this.
  5. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    4,823
    Likes:
    3,730
    Queens, NY
    This is how neurasthenia appears in ICD-10

    I was surprised to see that it still appears in the ICD coding since I thought this was an old term not used any longer.

  6. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,948
    Likes:
    7,801
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Neurasthenia is a popular diagnosis in China. When first proposed it read like a description of ME does today, but this didn't take off ... what became popular was the Freudian variant, in which neurasthenia was a mental disorder for men who did not get enough sex. From there it evolved even further, but was out of favour for most of last century.
    justinreilly likes this.
  7. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Senior Member

    Messages:
    269
    Likes:
    346
    Toronto
    Well she's going to look pretty silly when we start getting good biological research results with biomarkers etc. :redface:
    Things are happening in that regard. :)
    Best she get off the train to lala land that she's on and join the ranks of real science.
    I actually have more to say but am having trouble thinking clearly. :aghhh:
    justinreilly and alex3619 like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page