Ember
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,115
The P2P process is expected to be “an excellent adjunct to the discussions around the clinical definition,” according to the CFSAC minutes:Why do we have these parallel works going on at the same time? Is this P2P wprk in order to ensure that HHS has input the IoM study?
Dr. Lee: Let me also say that the department took the recommendation which asked for research and clinical definitions and let that be advice from the committee. The original recommendation said something about working on both clinical and research definitions. What we decided to do with that amidst a good bit of controversy among the subcommittee calls—which I don’t think we have the time to revisit—we discussed that NIH had the wonderful and already funded process to think about the research case definition. It may not be the goal of the workshop to come out with a research case definition, but there will be so much good evidence that that can be the next step. We are now actively pursuing methods to address the clinical research definition part. I think we should not discuss this anymore because I don’t want to take up the rest of the day. [To Dr. Fletcher] You’re interrupting me. You’re interrupting me. Remember, we’re not supposed to do that.
Dr. Fletcher: This doesn’t respond to our recommendation at all. Dr. Maier said that her workshop is not to create a case definition. That’s not its purpose.
Dr. Lee: Let me finish, please. What I said, and what Dr. Maier has said to me, is that this will give us a very good next way to go to look at the research case definition, because we’re now going to have the evidence. It’s going to be the evidence review. The process for the workshop will be an excellent adjunct to the discussions around the clinical definition, and we are actively pursuing options for that.
Last edited: