Studies on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Graded Exercise Therapy for ME/CFS are misleading

I thought this was very good

Full text in English: https://goo.gl/wSMO7a
i.e.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ded_Exercise_Therapy_for_MECFS_are_misleading

Loading Tweet... https://twitter.com/statuses/789536932426551296

 

I agree. I read it and it's very good.

 

Any paper which concludes

Is bound to be good

Can we have more of these ?

 

Agree, this is an excellent paper! Thanks for posting,

 

Excellent article. I'd have liked to see mention that FINE and the PACE followup showed no between group differences, and the latest PACE data release, but we can't have everything! There's plenty here to completely demolish the biopsychosocial model. Now how do we get all doctors to read it!

 

This is excellent. However will doctors pay attention to it as it not in "peer reviewed journal" and not by a medical doctor?

It should not really matter as it is the quality of the paper that counts rather than who wrote it and where. However the medical profession is very backward in its thinking and defers too much to authority.

 

http://socialmedicinsktidskrift.se/index.php/smt/pages/view/in_english

 

@tomkindlon thanks for that info as I did not click on the swedish links and did not see that.

Whilst I am responding here- thanks a lot for all your hard work on ME and with writing to journals etc that you have done over the years !!

 

Alternative link for paper:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nllclnhz9nhl99p/Helmfrid_SMT2016_EnglishVersion.pdf

 

I encourage everyone to read and spread this article, it's a great review of the issues.

 

@charles shepherd just a quick general question if you have a moment : can papers like this be used as new research for NICE consideration ?
Thanks.

 

This is not research as such.
It is more an extended letter to the editor - the publication of these may be quite a low bar, and may not need to pass any peer review.
Any peer review that does happen is of the 'it's not clearly wrong' sort - and it catches the attention of the editor to be published.

This is not of itself evidence a properly conducted clinical review should use - it's one persons opinion, backed by a selection of previously published papers, and does not of itself add anything to the sum of knowledge on CFS/ME/SEID/'there's nothing bloody wrong with you, you're just faking it'.

It can contain arguments they should look at in weighing the existing evidence.

Evidence a clinical treatment guideline review is supposed to take into account varies from:
Clinical trials with adequate numbers of patients to robustly determine the effect of that treatment.
Evidence around if those trials are properly conducted.
Research into the way the disease changes the state of the human body.
Inferences that can be securely drawn from the first two into likely results of treatments and their costs and harms on the whole patient population involved.

Letters (even from powerful people) advocating one side or the other should be ignored other than as they may point to either evidence about clinical trials or research about the body. Simply adopting the viewpoint of a given letter like this is absolutely what a clinical treatment review must not do.

Quality unfortunately of reviews varies significantly often from a careful and rational unbiased assessment of all evidence around.