Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Feb 14, 2017.
A ray of sunshine in a pond full of cow flop and sat upon by treacherous toads and slimy weasels!
Always nice to see someone living up to ideals, decency and critical thinking
Such people are going to be needed to rebuild the corrupt House of "Mind Medicine" one day, beyond just helping us.
Bloody brilliant! Give them knight/dame-hoods
Wow, this is brilliant. BPS model disproved again! As I understand it, they are saying that it is illness severity that causes impairment, fatigue and low activity level. They show that beliefs have nothing to do with any of these factors.
Severity of symptoms is not caused by false illness beliefs or by low activity levels. CBT and GET are not appropriate or effective treatments.
Good to see them clearly demarcating the difference between chronic fatigue syndrome, and chronic fatigue as a symptom caused by depression.
Another nail in Wessely and PACE's coffins.
Made my day, especially after Wessely's ghastly self satisfied preening on the radio this morning.
'these failed replication attempts support patient-expressed concerns about the appropriateness and efficacy of these treatments.'
Such a contrast to Wessely's talk of being threatened by disgruntled patients.
The whole document is worth a read if you are in to this sort of thing.
The Vercoulen model (that found that faulty illness beliefs was the problem) is slammed beautifully from page 6:
Broad inclusion criteria - Oxford definition, just more than 6 months unexplained fatigue
Measurement selection - I was amazed at how limited the measures of impairment and activity levels used by Vercoulen were. For example for 'Impairment', it seems that they used only two questions:
I have given up taking care of personal or household business affairs (e.g., paying bills, banking, working on budget);
I am doing less of the regular daily work around the house than I usually do.
Now, since I and my children became ill I have stopped work and so I actually do more of the household business affairs than I used to. We can't afford a cleaner anymore and my son and I are home virtually all of the time, so there is more housework and food preparation to do and I do more of it than I used to. But I don't do my demanding, satisfying paid work anymore.
So, using the Vercoulen measure of impairment, I was actually more impaired when I was a busy executive who frequently worked overseas in cultures quite different to my own and could do complex abstract thinking for long periods than I am now, a housewife whose major challenge is getting to the supermarket, remembering what I went there for and getting home again.
As Sunnquist says:
It seems to me as though Vercoulen et al specifically picked measures out of a whole range of possibilities that gave them the answer they wanted.
Sample size: Too small
Causal claims: Basically, it is all very well finding an association between attribution of illness to a physical cause, low activity levels and fatigue, but that in itself says nothing about causation.
That's as far as I have got. But I'm impressed. Well done Madison Sunnquist and thank you.
Yes! Over the years, DePaul has come out with some good research.
My rheumatologist in Chicago worked half time in a physician practice and half time research on Fibromyalgia. It would be interesting to fiind out if they've done studies that include both me/cfs and FM.
That's the important step. At the moment it's nice but not that helpful, get it published and it's much more useful.
They have never made any serious attempt to reject alternative explanations, and typically don't even mention that alternative explanations might exist. The modus operandi appears to be: can I construct a psychosocial narrative from this correlation? Not "is a psychosocial narrative the best fit for the data?"
This has been published now. See new thread:
I'm confused. I can't determine whether the researchers intended the above as a joke cast upon the patients, as an insult, or as a means to evade acknowledging that our illness exists.
These are not phrases chosen by the researchers, but specific research questionaires that attempt to measure disability, there are several, and most are terrible.
This is the SIP.
They are commonly used scales of disability in research,so it's a little different problem than the researchers picking bad questions themselves.
Ouch. It seems those authoritatively compiled questions wete written by people with no knowledge of the subject matter, and no interest in gaining it.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.