Often in ME/CFS research, new studies draw the same – or similar – conclusions to those that have been published previously.
There are several reasons why this replication is important, including:
- Accumulation of knowledge: The results from one study alone are usually not enough to draw firm conclusions about an association. Rather, researchers must gather evidence from several studies leading to the accumulation of knowledge over time.
- Replication using different methods: When results from studies using different scientific methods support each other, this strengthens the evidence base for a particular association.
- Increased trustworthiness: As evidence grows in support of a particular hypothesis – especially when the evidence is from different research groups, using different methods and different study populations – the more other researchers, health professionals, and the public come to trust the conclusions drawn.
- Research funding: The more high-quality research there is suggesting that a particular system is involved ME/CFS disease mechanisms – such as immune system – the more likely it is that large funding bodies will invest in research into potential treatments in that area for the disease.
A recent example is a study by a team of researchers at Cornell University which concluded that “immune dysregulation underlies ME/CFS pathology”. While this conclusion is not ‘new’ knowledge in itself – ME/CFS has been linked with the immune system for years – findings add to the evidence base which supports involvement of the immune system in ME/CFS disease mechanisms.
