1. Patients launch $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!
August 8th - What is the one thing about suffering with severe ME that the world needs to know?
Andrew Gladman brings our coverage of the Understanding & Remembrance Day for Severe ME, airing the voice of patients ...
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:
    5,824
    Likes:
    5,974
    Cornwall England
  2. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,824
    Likes:
    5,974
    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