Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
Research bias in ME/CFS
(section)
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Bias recognition== [[Keith Geraghty|Geraghty]] et al. (2019) looked at evidence behind the popular [[Biopsychosocial model|cognitive behavioral model]] of ME/CFS, and found that a number of research papers contained significant evidence that did not support the model combined with contradictory abstracts or conclusions at odds with the authors' results,<ref name="Geraghty2019">{{Cite journal | last = Geraghty | first = Keith | authorlink = Keith Geraghty | last2 = Jason | first2 = Leonard | authorlink2 = Leonard Jason | last3 = Sunnquist | first3 = Madison | authorlink3 = Madison Sunnquist | last4 = Tuller | first4 = David | authorlink4 = David Tuller | last5 = Blease | first5 = Charlotte | authorlink5 = Charlotte Blease | last6 = Adeniji | first6 = Charles | authorlink6 = Charles Adeniji | date = Jan 1, 2019| title = The ‘cognitive behavioural model’ of chronic fatigue syndrome: Critique of a flawed model|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102919838907|journal=Health Psychology Open|language=en|volume=6|issue=1|pages=2055102919838907|doi=10.1177/2055102919838907|issn=2055-1029|quote=|via=}}</ref> and notable selective interpretation of evidence, such as ignoring any contradictory research.<ref name="Geraghty2019" /> [[Sonia Lee]] (PhD) assessed research waste in ME/CFS by comparing the PACE trial with two cellular trials, finding that "selective reporting", an indicator of research waste, was greater in the PACE trial; however this paper (2017) was not [[peer review]]ed.<ref name="researchwaste" /> [[How have selection bias and disease misclassification undermined the validity of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome studies?|Nacul et al. (2017)]] discussed the effects of [[selection bias]], highlighting how [[Biopsychosocial model |psychosocial/biopsychosocial]] studies frequently used the broadest diagnostic criteria - the [[Oxford criteria]] - and did not break results down by subgroup. The use of the Oxford criteria lead to a 100-fold increase in disease prevalence compared to the [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] (CCC); with 14 out of 15 patients meeting the [[Oxford criteria]] typically failing to meet the [[Canadian Consensus Criteria]] for [[ME/CFS]].<ref name="Nacul2017" />
Summary:
Please make sure your edits are consistent with
MEpedia's guidelines
.
By saving changes, you agree to the
Terms of use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 3.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
This page is a member of 4 hidden categories:
Category:All articles with unsourced statements
Category:Articles that need an image or photo
Category:Articles with unsourced statements from 2020
Category:Articles with unsourced statements from unknown year
Navigation
Navigation
Skip to content
Main page
Browse
Become an editor
Random page
Popular pages
Abbreviations
Glossary
About MEpedia
Links for editors
Contents
Guidelines
Recent changes
Pages in need
Search
Help
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special pages
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs