Talk:Canadian Consensus Criteria

Reference style problems
Some references are not in the MEpedia style, for example the word "Read" should not be in a reference. Some references have no author or date etc. Also, is an alternative way of referencing chapters needed, maybe a new template? notjusttired (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

I think it's pretty clear why this isn't used on a clinical level. Even a specialist would be pulling their hair out trying to go through all these symptoms. It isn't that I don't agree with this criteria but this is quite the diagnostic nightmare requiring great effort in both gathering of reported symptoms and tests and possibly requiring many specialists with someone dedicated to co-coordinating it all. Insurance companies don't like covering all of this especially those that need referrals which often require Primaries to request with formal paperwork and possibly rejected. Researchers probably are better at using this and those clinicians highly specialized in diagnosing ME/CFS but the average clinician won't get involved with this. Exclusions on a clinical level is ridiculous because as the IOM pointed out having an excluded disease and CFS is not only possible it is probably a given. Researchers at times need to follow an exclusionary disease but not always.--DxCFS (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2016 (PDT)