deleder2k
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,129
Last edited:
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
where is the original link to the data, i can only find a link from coynes post?
where is the original link to the data, i can only find a link from coynes post?
The link Coyne gave is the same link Matthees et al gave in their analysis paper on Virology.
The link Coyne gave is the same link Matthees et al gave in their analysis paper on Virology.
Oops! I must have been too focused on the paper - the link didn't register.
Has anyone had a good look at this data yet ? I've had a bit of a look over it but did not spot anything particularly noteworthy.
If this is confirmed we should highlight it as often as possible as proof of how poor the recovery criteria are.I'll offer this as a tentative observation (because of uncertainty about the application of the Oxford criteria at 52 weeks), but it appears that the post-hoc changes to the recovery thresholds allowed one participant to "recover" having walked only 206 metres in six minutes, which is about 1.28 miles per hour.
At baseline they were able to walk 302 metres in the alloted time, so their walking capacity actually declined significantly over the course of the year.
Worryingly, the clinic doctor rated them as "very much better".
@wdb how did you deal with missing data? Often the data for the walking test at 52 weeks is missing.