Ergonomics and ME/CFS: Have You Hurt Yourself Without Knowing It?
Having a chronic illness like ME/CFS can make it hard to avoid problems that come from bad ergonomics. Jody Smith has learned some lessons the hard way ...
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:
    5,988
    Cornwall England
     
  2. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,823
    Likes:
    5,988
    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