EDITOR—As a member of the chief medical officer’s working group on chronic fatigue syndrome, I consider that Straus has failed to appreciate the difficulties of deciding what constitutes evidence in an illness as uncertain and heterogeneous as this.1 He also misunderstood, or took out of context, some of the key conclusions and recommendations in the chief medical officer’s report.
Although it was agreed that evidence should not just be limited to the results of randomised controlled trials, the findings of the York systematic review were frequently cited. It was therefore disingenuous of Straus to state that information from this review did not influence the report’s conclusions about a wide range of therapeutic interventions. It did.
Equally, it would have been a serious omission if the report had failed to refer to the feedback from patients contained in three large surveys on attitudes to management, as well as two events where patients and carers met with the working group. All three surveys concluded that graded exercise as is currently being done made more people worse than any other intervention. Pacing, however, was found to be beneficial by around 90% of respondents. By dismissing such views as anecdote, Straus fails to appreciate that the Department of Health is encouraging patients to enter into a therapeutic relationship with the medical profession in the management of chronic conditions such as this.2
You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122848/
Source: Shepherd C. Editorial on CFS was biased, inaccurate, and misleading. BMJ. 2002 Apr 13;324(7342):914. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122848/ (Full article)