From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of text and reference:

CBT has been shown to be moderately effective for treating chronic fatigue syndrome. [1]

Although a systematic review the sole reference date from 2006 and and developments in advice on treatments for CFS have evolved, notably from the NIH https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M15-0338 CDC https://www.cdc.gov/me-cfs/treatment/index.html and NICE https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng206/chapter/Recommendations#managing-mecfs all of which strongly imply the text "CBT has been shown to be moderately effective for treating chronic fatigue syndrome" is a poor representation of current medical practice. The CFS article itself is structured on these more recent sources - NIH is from 2015, CDC is current and NICE published October 2021. Accordingly the text and reference has been edited from the article. In Vitro Infidelium ( talk) 14:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

My advice is edit the context of this reference so decent pointers to the current literatures exist. There's no need to make the perfect the enemy of the good here: simple having a footnote along the lines of "but see REFERENCE1 and REFERENCE2" can be very helpful both for readers who want to dig in and spotting slanted editing of the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Chambers D, Bagnall AM, Hempel S, Forbes C (October 2006). "Interventions for the treatment, management and rehabilitation of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: an updated systematic review". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99 (10): 506–20. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.10.506. PMC  1592057. PMID  17021301.

Effectiveness of "third wave CBT" treatments

I find this sentence:

"Despite the increasing popularity of third-wave treatment approaches, reviews of studies reveal there may be no difference in the effectiveness compared with non-third wave CBT for the treatment of depression."

at the end of the section about third wave CBT misleading. The source ( https://doi.org/10.1002%2F14651858.CD008704.pub2) states that the conclusion is made with very low confidence, from only three RCTs with a total of 144 participants, of which two were assessed as very low quality. So this is not "reviews of studies", but one review, and it doesn't "reveal" anything really, but only suggests something with low confidence, with the main takeaway being that there needs to be more research.

I would suggest leaving it out. SpookyFM ( talk) 13:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Wiki Education assignment: Brain Tips

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cbrads2 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Llj2.

— Assignment last updated by Llj2 ( talk) 00:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of text and reference:

CBT has been shown to be moderately effective for treating chronic fatigue syndrome. [1]

Although a systematic review the sole reference date from 2006 and and developments in advice on treatments for CFS have evolved, notably from the NIH https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M15-0338 CDC https://www.cdc.gov/me-cfs/treatment/index.html and NICE https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng206/chapter/Recommendations#managing-mecfs all of which strongly imply the text "CBT has been shown to be moderately effective for treating chronic fatigue syndrome" is a poor representation of current medical practice. The CFS article itself is structured on these more recent sources - NIH is from 2015, CDC is current and NICE published October 2021. Accordingly the text and reference has been edited from the article. In Vitro Infidelium ( talk) 14:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

My advice is edit the context of this reference so decent pointers to the current literatures exist. There's no need to make the perfect the enemy of the good here: simple having a footnote along the lines of "but see REFERENCE1 and REFERENCE2" can be very helpful both for readers who want to dig in and spotting slanted editing of the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Chambers D, Bagnall AM, Hempel S, Forbes C (October 2006). "Interventions for the treatment, management and rehabilitation of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: an updated systematic review". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99 (10): 506–20. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.10.506. PMC  1592057. PMID  17021301.

Effectiveness of "third wave CBT" treatments

I find this sentence:

"Despite the increasing popularity of third-wave treatment approaches, reviews of studies reveal there may be no difference in the effectiveness compared with non-third wave CBT for the treatment of depression."

at the end of the section about third wave CBT misleading. The source ( https://doi.org/10.1002%2F14651858.CD008704.pub2) states that the conclusion is made with very low confidence, from only three RCTs with a total of 144 participants, of which two were assessed as very low quality. So this is not "reviews of studies", but one review, and it doesn't "reveal" anything really, but only suggests something with low confidence, with the main takeaway being that there needs to be more research.

I would suggest leaving it out. SpookyFM ( talk) 13:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Wiki Education assignment: Brain Tips

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cbrads2 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Llj2.

— Assignment last updated by Llj2 ( talk) 00:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook