I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like one (or two) additional reviewers before I nominate at FAC. Is the article sufficiently understandable to a broad audience? Is there still some awkward prose?
You state (in the lead) "ME/CFS affected roughly one in every 150 people" and then "Doctors may be unfamiliar with ME/CFS, as it is often not covered in medical school". The obvious question is "How can med schools not teach about something that affects 1 in 150 of the population?" Either one of those statements is wrong, or there's a glaring gap in medical education. Either way, it deserves some discussion.
I'm not sure how to expand on this. The cited source bases their statement on a single 2013 study, which found 6% of medical schools in the US teach ME/CFS fully (so both theoretically, practically & research). I have weakened the sentence accordingly (not covered --> not fully covered). In the UK, the 2022 interim delivery plan noted the same gap. NICE has a short discussion in their guideline evidence doc (p.18), which follows the doctor-patient relationships section in the themes discussed (i.e. patients sometimes teaching HCPs). My guess is that limited teaching comes from limited research, which I have discussed in detail. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading this mostly to answer your "Is the article sufficiently understandable to a broad audience?" question. To give some context, I'm not a doctor, but have a better than average grounding in medicine and human physiology. So far, Im finding this easy reading. Every time I come upon some technical term that I expect most people would not understand ("orthostatic intolerance", "postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome", "Orthostatic hypotension" you've provided both an in-line explanation and a link to an article for more details. So all good there.
"hypersensitivities to touch, light, sound, and smells" you've got a link, but this might also benefit from an in-line explanation of "hypersensitivities"
Overall, as you get further into the article, particularly the "Diagnosis" and "Management" sections, it gets more technical, but I think that's fine; anybody who gets that far is likely to have a stronger technical background.
As far as the prose goes, there are a few odd phrases. I'll list them as I see them.
"They cannot be caused by a different illness", I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Hah, I wasn't aware there was a difference. Benbound is what the sources consistently use, so I'll stick with that one. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"cannot independently care for themselves." -> "for themselves" kind of implies "independently"
"People with ME/CFS have decreased quality of life according to the SF-36 questionnaire" -> "... indicate a decreased qualify of life when evaluated using the sF-36 questionnaire"
I don't quite understand your suggestion.
"Less than 50% of people with ME/CFS are employed" -> I would have used "fewer" instead of "less", but I think you might find multiple opinions on that
"Bacterial infections such as Q-fever are another potential trigger." -> "Bacterial infections" is plural, so I think you want "... are other potential triggers".
"a full blood count, a HIV test, red blood cell sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein, blood glucose and thyroid-stimulating hormone." WP:SEAOFBLUE
Treatment is aimed at relieving symptoms, as no therapies or medications are approved to treat the condition - I'd rearrange this to first say that there is no treatment and then mentioning symptom relief.
ME/CFS affected roughly one in every 150 people - given the uncertainties including the various diagnostic criteria used over the years, why are we attempting an estimate? Also, since I'm no statistician what's the rationale behind using the "pooled percentage" number?
I asked my resident statician at home whether I should use the pooled prevalence or the meta-analysis. I'd chosen the meta-analysis as this was the number the authors of that paper highlighted. He indicated he had no idea what the authors had done because they didn't explain it sufficiently. Either way, I think you're right we shouldn't highlight a single number that falls somewhere in between the prevalance rates of the different definitions, but show the wide range explicitly. Changed to 2 to 9 out of 1000 people, as natural frequencies are best for ease of understanding.
Thanks Draken Bowser for your comments. This is probably the most difficult article I've worked on so far, but I do relish the challenge :). I'd be happy to hear more. Hope to nominate before the end of the months, and keen to hear opinions on whether it's ready. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
