Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Firestormm, Jun 18, 2013.
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?
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.