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!
Give ME the Money
Graham McPhee spells out some of the cold, hard facts about the dismal state of ME research and politics, and has some suggestions as to what we can do about it ...
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:
    5,982
    Cornwall England
     
  2. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,824
    Likes:
    5,982
    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