Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Posted by Science-Based on 07 Jan 2010 at 05:03 GMT

Completely different cohort studied. NOT a replication study. This study did NOT use the rigorous Canadian AND Fukuda criteria for cohort selection, used in the esteemed Science paper. Therefore this paper cannot claim to be a replication study, as it was investigating an entirely different patient population. PLOS should know better. The results reflect an apples-and-oranges comparison.
Link to Canadian Criteria:

No competing interests declared.