Rapid response to the BMJ ‘living systematic review’ of long COVID interventions

December 5, 2024 less than 1 minute read

The BMJ (British Medical Journal) recently published a ‘living’ systematic review of interventions for long COVID (post-COVID condition) by Zeraatkhar and coauthors.

I submitted a rapid response to the journal to highlight some of the issues with the paper.

The paper contains myriad substantial errors and should never have been published. In-depth commentaries on this paper and its shortcomings have been provided by David Tuller and Prof. Brian Hughes, while ME/CFS Skeptic has written a characteristially excellent critique. The rapid response by Chloé de Canson and coauthors is also worth reading.

Share on

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

ME/CFS, depression, and poorly evidenced theories

January 14, 2025 1 minute read

It occured to me recently that there are quite a number of similarities between the chemical imbalance theory of depression, the traditional (bio)psychosocia...

Text-message lobbying of senior NICE staff by individuals at NHS England and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in days before ME/CFS guideline pause

December 4, 2021 11 minute read

On August 4 2021, an embargoed copy of the final NICE guideline for ME/CFS — already severely delayed — was distributed to registered stakeholders “for a fin...

BACME, NHS ME/CFS clinics shift from deconditioning to dysregulation model of ME/CFS in anticipation of updated NICE guideline

August 8, 2021 8 minute read

The British Association for Clinicians in ME/CFS (BACME) describes itself as ‘a multidisciplinary organisation for UK professionals who are involved in the d...

Behind the scenes at NICE: The justification for further delay to the ME/CFS guideline publication date

May 5, 2021 4 minute read

On March 29, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) announced that the expected publication date for the revised guideline for ME/CFS h...

Dom Salisbury