Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Nielk, Jun 16, 2015.
The full report is out https://prevention.nih.gov/docs/programs/mecfs/ODP-P2P-MECFS-FinalReport.pdf
If somebody does a partial or complete comparison with the draft, I for one would be interested in seeing the differences (or maybe it has been completely re-drafted?)
I see nothing about increasing funding, just talk of making better use of funding sources that already exist. OK...
This work is underway.
(Also working on comparing the final report on the NIH site to the Annals paper.)
I compared the paper in Annals and the final report .
There appear to be few substantive differences between them.
Another advocate has pointed out that on page 2 of the final report, the first line says "ME/CFS results in major disability for a large proportion of the people affected." (The draft report uses the same phrase.)
In Annals that same line (first paragraph of body of article) says "It results in major disability for many persons."
I wonder if the following may have been suggestions from the editors at Annals rather than the authors of the report.
Every instance of the word "Thus" in the final report is changed to "Therefore" in the Annals article.
"e.g." is used in the final report but replaced in Annals with "such as".
"comorbidities" is used in the final report, but replaced in Annals with "comorbid conditions".
The final report uses the phrase "health care utilization" whereas Annals refers to "health care use".
The Annals article tends to use the phrase "patients with ME/CFS" whereas the final report refers to ME/CFS patients.
The final report uses "fail" or "failure" in 6 places, the Annals article uses "failure" in once place.
EDITED TO ADD: While this comparison is not exhaustive, the differences between the two documents make me wonder how much of the differences are style/format edits suggested by Annals.
Thank you @Denise for this tedious work! Do you know if anyone is working on comparing the draft report to the final report?
I believe that the draft to final report comparison is being done but a detailed write-up may take a while.
It's a huge undertaking. Thank you.
If you can get the two documents into text format, you could run something like windiff or examdiff to highlight the differences between the documents side-by-side. Whoever's doing this, I hope they're using a tool like that.
Having been the victim of technical editors many times (Just teasing, they generally do a great job ), I can comfortably say that those changes look exactly like style/format edits. I doubt there's any technical meaning behind those changes.
The full analysis is still taking place.
OccupyCFS has this first post (of 2?) http://www.occupycfs.com/2015/06/22/showing-the-back-of-their-heads/
OccupyCFS 2nd post on P2P http://www.occupycfs.com/2015/06/29/p2p-where-next/
MEadvocacy post on P2P - http://www.meadvocacy.org/ignoring_the_voice_of_the_patients_-_business_as_usual
Cort has written about the report:
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.