Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
MEpedia talk:Science guidelines
(section)
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Project page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit source
New topic
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!
==Minor suggestions from last update == *[[Objective outcome]]s more reliable than [[subjective outcome]]s (e.g. step counters vs questionnaires) *RCTs: objective outcomes vs subjective to mention? How to compare double blind with subjective outcomes better than unblinded with objective outcomes? *Systematic reviews are often given more weight elsewhere than RCTs, do we have a policy on this given they major issues with certain systematic reviews eg the York Review used by the NHS, and Cochrane's *Consider linking to [[:Category:Research terminology]] (although this does need work) * Is it worth pointing out that close attention should be paid to the diagnostic criteria used, eg CCC selects more severely ill patients and less patients than Fukuda CFS criteria or SEID criteria, Fukuda more than Oxford * Trials with [[pre-specified outcome]]s given more weight except when [[outcome switching]] occurs? *Possibly link to [[Research bias in ME/CFS]] or the research terminology category. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 15:52, September 16, 2019 (EDT) ::With the exception of selection criteria (encompassing more than just diagnostic criteria), which should be mentioned: you can't capture everything with rules. Experienced editors will weigh the evidence on a case-by-case basis. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 17:02, September 16, 2019 (EDT) ::: A minor remark: I don't think objective outcomes are seen as more reliable per se, it's just that they are more robust towards all sorts of biases. When a trial is properly controlled and blinded, then subjective outcomes can be equally or even more useful (for example because objective outcomes are often proxy's of what you want to measure).--[[User:Sisyphus|Sisyphus]] ([[User talk:Sisyphus|talk]]) 18:20, September 16, 2019 (EDT) :::: I agree, Sisyphus. Guido, guidelines are for everyone to follow. -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ::::: Wrong section for this comment, I think. What I'm saying here is that we shouldn't try and create guidelines for everything. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 13:06, September 17, 2019 (EDT) ===Re: Minor suggestions from last update -- ~~~~=== : Replace this text with your reply
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)
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