Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Feb 4, 2018.
When I initially read this I thought that the SIP8 criterion <=203 was part of the definition of full recovery. However looking back on it again I think maybe it is not included (and that if it was used the figure for full recovery might be lower).
If one looks at the group of those with comorbidities in Table 4., "No disabilities in all domains" = 9%. However, "Combining criteria of fatigue, disabilities and perception of health and fatigue" = 12%. This latter figure should really be 9% or lower if "No disabilities in all domains" is a criterion, though I suppose if there was missing data on some items, it would be possible to get an overall percentage of 12%.
If one looks at table 1, the part below the line seems to be set of criteria used for full recovery. The SIP8 part is not used there.
Similarly the text says:
I.e. no mention of the SIP8
This "study" is 10 years old.
Yes, but the recent paper by Twisk & Corsius got me thinking about it again. I couldn't fit the year in the title.
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how CBT would cure infections, immune system dysfunction, nutrient and hormone deficiencies/imbalances, toxicity, and/or other problems underlying ME/CFS for many patients.
Did the patients in the study have PEM or othostatic intolerance? Were those measured as recovered, too, with CBT?
23% could encompass spontaneous remission, misdiagnosis, methodalogical errors, and relapse / remitting patterns
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.