Interesting.
It looks like it suggests that there was never really as much misdiagnosis as previously reported, only poor study design.
Which has improved since then.
You could use a similar methodology to conclude that ME is CFS and CFS is a psychiatric condition and best treated with CBT/GET.
I definitely don't trust that study. Metaanalysis, in a field in which there is not considerable sound material, and for which there are not appropriate experimental measures, is frought with peril. Its a huge problem with ME research, for example.
When there are
systematic biases in the literature or methodology then an evidence based approach, including meta-analysis, reinforces the bias. Its supposed to be about eliminating bias, but it can amplify bias.
Fundamentally, at its core, are concepts that are unprovable and unscientific. That undoes all of it.
They also pull a fast mislabel switch by stating that conversion disorder is simply a label applied to patients with symptoms that are not understood. Medically unexplained symptoms are therefore conversion disorder. Yet the two actually have very different theoretical and practical meanings.
They also removed many potential problems for their hypothesis by exclusion after exclusion.
In my current view, the misdiagnosis rate approaches 100%, the rest is bias or failure to diagnose. "Evidence" to the contrary is of poor quality, and poorly interpreted.
This is not an easy task for psychogenic proponents. Its not a simple area in medicine. Rather than treating it as scientific though, they seem to think they can dabble in scientific sounding methods, and hope nobody notices, and then proclaim it science.
The underlying "science" is actually nonscience. Claiming that as science, and using tools used in science to give it a veneer of scientific credibility, is pseudoscience (I am writing a blog on this currently).
The question is, is the medical practice of pseudoscience quackery? Given that when applied as an art, with full knowledge its flawed and fragile knowledge, it might not be quackery? Then is quackery that is institutionally protected still quackery? Or does it deserve its own name?
