2 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2018
    1. On 2017 Sep 10, Susanne Bejerot commented:

      Intriguingly we published a parallel study with the same methodology using the equipment provided by the company Sensodetect Inc, but we found that the method had a very low ability to identify patients with psychotic disorders, adhd and autism, as well as identifying the healthy controls in a blinded study, see Manouilenko I, Humble MB, Georgieva J, Bejerot S. Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potentials for diagnosing Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD and Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders in adults. A blinded study. Psychiatry Res. 2017 Jul 6;257:21-26. Manouilenko I, 2017. Consequently, I contacted the first author of the Acta Neuropsychiatrica paper, Eva Juselius Baghdassarian, to discuss our conflicting findings. Her explanation was their use of an old stationary auditory brainstem response apparatus, whereas we used the company’s mobile modern machine. Our machine was transported back and fourth between Stockholm and the south of Sweden in a large cabin bag. This is of course highly problematic, as the company currently markets the method that we used. I suggest that the interested reader carefully reads the method section of both papers.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

  2. Feb 2018
    1. On 2017 Sep 10, Susanne Bejerot commented:

      Intriguingly we published a parallel study with the same methodology using the equipment provided by the company Sensodetect Inc, but we found that the method had a very low ability to identify patients with psychotic disorders, adhd and autism, as well as identifying the healthy controls in a blinded study, see Manouilenko I, Humble MB, Georgieva J, Bejerot S. Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potentials for diagnosing Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD and Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders in adults. A blinded study. Psychiatry Res. 2017 Jul 6;257:21-26. Manouilenko I, 2017. Consequently, I contacted the first author of the Acta Neuropsychiatrica paper, Eva Juselius Baghdassarian, to discuss our conflicting findings. Her explanation was their use of an old stationary auditory brainstem response apparatus, whereas we used the company’s mobile modern machine. Our machine was transported back and fourth between Stockholm and the south of Sweden in a large cabin bag. This is of course highly problematic, as the company currently markets the method that we used. I suggest that the interested reader carefully reads the method section of both papers.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.