← All reviews

3 reviews

• 4.5/ 10Fails

  The DePaul Symptom Questionnaire-2: A Validation Study

  Bedree H, Sunnquist M, Jason LA · Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior · 2019

  A sensible revision of a patient questionnaire, honestly described, but with no comparison group, no reference diagnosis and no repeat testing it cannot show the validity and reliability its title and conclusion claim.

  No comparison group or reference diagnosisMore people meeting criteria is built into the designSplitting two-in-one questions shows clear differences
• 5/ 10Borderline

  Muscle abnormalities worsen after post-exertional malaise in long COVID

  Appelman B, Charlton BT, Goulding RP, et al. · Nature Communications · 2024

  Patients' muscle differed from that of recovered, more active controls at baseline, but the claim that abnormalities worsen after post-exertional malaise is mostly unsupported: most changes were shared with controls or never tested between groups.

  Muscle damage claims lack the between-group testTissue scoring yes/no, blinding to time point unclearControls did the same exercise test and biopsies
• 4/ 10Fails

  Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial

  White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al. · The Lancet · 2011

  A large, well-run trial whose gains rest on questionnaires filled in by patients who knew their treatment, while fitness, work and benefits did not improve; it cannot show that talking therapy or graded exercise changed the illness rather than how it was reported.

  Main outcomes self-rated by unblinded patientsFitness, work and benefits did not improveLarge, properly randomised, very few dropouts