1.7% of a population with a large closed health system in the U.S. had ME/CFS-like illness as defined by IOM criteria. 14% of all cases had COVID-19 as a precipitating factor. ME/CFS is still the most common thing nobody's ever heard of. journals.plos.org/plosone/arti... - ThreadSky

sunsopeningband.bsky.social • 94 days ago

1.7% of a population with a large closed health system in the U.S. had ME/CFS-like illness as defined by IOM criteria. 14% of all cases had COVID-19 as a precipitating factor.

ME/CFS is still the most common thing nobody's ever heard of. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0309810

Comments

me-cfs.bsky.social•94 days ago

I wonder how the prevalence statistics would change if using ICC?

sunsopeningband.bsky.social•94 days ago

Might be slightly less for confirmed ME but has the added value of identifying atypical ME. The problem is ICC would be a nightmare to use for this kind of retrospective work. There’s just too many moving parts to have to operationally define and figure out what data to pull to satisfy the criteria.

sunsopeningband.bsky.social•94 days ago

Speaking even as someone who prefers and advocates for using the ICC.

astill73.bsky.social•94 days ago

📌

taraf.bsky.social•94 days ago

📌

otrosdias.bsky.social•93 days ago

📌

michael.is-post.ing•93 days ago

I’ve been hoping to read something like this. this is the first paper I’ve seen that looks at covid within an me/cfs cohort instead of the other way around…

pamelaraasen.bsky.social•94 days ago

I have so many questions. There are so many factors in diagnosis and lack of diagnosis for both ME and Covid. When the discussion section of a research article is the longest section in the paper keep looking. I admit I struggle with the use of “ME-like symptoms” - to close to ”flu-like symptoms’

sunsopeningband.bsky.social•94 days ago

My thought with this paper, as with all of them, is the perfect paper doesn’t exist, and they’re all on some continuum between totally useless and totally helpful. (I don’t read the introductions and discussions to avoid spin and wasting time, which helps. I’m a methods- and results-only reader. ☺️)

pamelaraasen.bsky.social•94 days ago

I generally read the methods and results too. Medical and physiological research is out of my field so I tend to read the discussion when I have questions. Psychological research is so rigid that it loses out on new ideas. The critique is more important than the discovery. I never fit the that mold🤣

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply