Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Inaccuracy in Discussion

Posted by Balbuie on 09 Jan 2010 at 17:16 GMT

In the Discussion you state that: "Both studies use the widely accepted 1994 clinical case definition of CFS."

This sentence is a half truth.

It gives the false impression to readers that both of these studies were looking at patients defined by the same case definition, but as you must be aware, as it is clearly stated in the Lombardi paper, they used both the Fukuda AND the Canadian Consensus Definition to define their patient group, hence the two papers are not looking at the same population of patients, thus invalidating this paper before the research has even begun.

I am surprised that this most basic of points was not picked up by the editorial staff or peer reviewers, never mind by the array of authors, several of whom are not at all new to the CFS field and hence are very well aware of the issues of case definition.

No competing interests declared.