Skip to main content
Article
Checking our Blind Spots: Current Status of Research Evidence Summaries in ME/CFS
British Journal of Sports Medicine
  • Todd E. Davenport, University of the Pacific
  • Staci R. Stevens, Workwell Foundation
  • J. Mark Van Ness, University of the Pacific
  • Jared Stevens, Workwell Foundation
  • Christopher R. Snell, University of the Pacific
ORCID
Todd Davenport: 0000-0001-5772-7727; J. Mark Van Ness: 0000-0001-5902-8735
Document Type
Article
Department
Health, Exercise, and Sport Sciences Department
DOI
10.1136/bjsports-2018-099553
Publication Date
7-17-2018
Abstract

The evidence-based practice (EBP) model hierarchically organises scientific information by level, from lowly case studies to lofty systematic reviews and clinical trials. Clinical trials best influence recommendations because they putatively have the greatest internal validity.1 This assumption is based on sound research ethics, such as scientific competence and good faith actors, as well as observed differences in outcomes. An EBP blind spot emerges when fundamental assumptions are unmet. Based on findings of a 2018 PEDro evidence summary in BJSM 2 and elsewhere,3 it now seems clear that scientific research in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) resides in a blind spot.

Citation Information
Todd E. Davenport, Staci R. Stevens, J. Mark Van Ness, Jared Stevens, et al.. "Checking our Blind Spots: Current Status of Research Evidence Summaries in ME/CFS" British Journal of Sports Medicine (2018) ISSN: 0306-3674
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/mark-vanness/189/