Only 5% of the included outcomes were considered to be of high quality for comparison purposes. The inclusion criteria are not clear. There is, however, a brief mention of PEM and need for personalised approach. I don’t think their data justify the headline conclusion.

This is important data. I couldn't see what severity of index infection there was though, (hospitalised, ICU, community managed) which can be important in clinical phenotype. Has anyone found it in the supplementary data (I couldn't on a quick look)? Text says they collected this info

This is an excellent thread that reflects a LOT of what we are dealing with academically and clinically and socially in our service. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, and damned if you think it or say it - or don't. Not an easy space to work in.

Long COVID is a heterogenous disease that has not been well described yet, and research is still required to be able to quickly phenotype patients and guide them towards appropriate management (drug and non-drug) strategies

📌

No clear differentiation of those who were fully vaccinated (two doses) cf single dose - which may be a significant confounder...

Indeed - I don’t doubt that- it was more for anyone who saw the headline in a re-post - no comment on your take at all 👍

I need to read it in more detail really - but kids / Christmas etc. Will get to it v soon though.

I found that discrepancy odd too. The improvement from baseline in the intervention group was larger than the specified 10 MCID but it was the difference between groups that was 9.2. The intervention is also interesting (supplement 3) as lots of the CBT could be considered good clinical comms.

📌

📌

📌