Jen Brea launches mass-advocacy platform — #MEAction goes live!
Jen Brea is a phenomenon. After working as a freelance writer in China and Africa, she enrolled for a PhD at Harvard in political science but, four years ago, got sick. She had a fever that lasted ten days.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

The adoption of CFS/ME case definitions to assess prevalance: a systematic review

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Firestormm, Jun 18, 2013.

  1. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,823
    Likes:
    6,008
    Cornwall England
     
  2. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,823
    Likes:
    6,008
    Cornwall England
    I felt there was something missing from the conclusion and I can't really comment more or take more from this abstract without reading the full paper which is behind a paywall.

    The missing link for me was an answer to the question: why? What substantive reason do the authors presume - based on their systemic review of those articles - is there to adopt either CCC or ICC - or ICC exclusively; for prevalence research?

    I wondered if they had been able to predict or ascertain prevalence estimates based on either or both or these more modern criteria and why - other than it is the most recent - the ICC in particular? I felt it lacked something by way of explanation.

    I don't need an explanation of course - but I felt the authors should have been more explicit in stating theirs based on this research.

    Other than that I don't think much can be taken away from this research method that wasn't already apparent. Do you?
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page