• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Peter White et cronies respond to NYT article

ixchelkali

Senior Member
Messages
1,107
Location
Long Beach, CA
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/health/15letters-STUDYINGAFAT_LETTERS.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print

Studying a Fatigue Illness (1 Letter)

To the Editor:

In Defining an Illness Is Fodder for Debate (March 8), your reporter David Tuller correctly noted that the way an illness is defined can often determine what is found in studies of it. He also suggested that this problem of definition had limited the interpretation of our trial of treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome, published recently in The Lancet. That is not the case.

The patients in this trial had a disabling chronic illness in which fatigue was their main symptom and for which no alternative had been found; that is the definition of the syndrome used in Britain. But we also assessed trial participants to see if they met two other definitions of the illness that are favored by some scientists.

We found that both cognitive behavior therapy and graded exercise therapy, when added to specialist medical care, were most effective not only in the whole sample but also in the participants who met these alternative criteria. In addition, these treatments were the most effective whether or not a patient was depressed, a not uncommon accompaniment to this chronic and misunderstood illness. The trial also found that these treatments were safe so long as they were provided by appropriate therapists trained to help patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.

So to Mr. Tullers question Does the evidence from that study prove that these strategies would help patients identified as having chronic fatigue syndrome through very different criteria?, the answer is Yes, it does. Patients and their doctors now have robust evidence that there are two safe treatments that can improve both symptoms and quality of life, however the illness is defined.

P. D. White
T. Chalder
M. Sharpe

London and Edinburgh


The writers are the principal investigators of the PACE trial.


David Tuller replies: The article asked whether findings among a population defined by one set of criteria would apply to populations defined by very different criteria. In this study, all participants were first defined, identified and selected not by different criteria but by the same criteria, the so-called Oxford criteria used in Britain. Subgroups within that already screened population who also meet secondary criteria are not easily compared to patients who have not been screened, since an unknown number who met the secondary criteria might not have met the studys criteria for inclusion. The gold standard for making comparisons across groups of patients identified by three varying case definitions would be a study with three completely separate cohorts, not one large sample with two embedded subgroups.


Science Times welcomes letters from readers. Those submitted for publication must include the writers name, address and telephone number. E-mail should be sent to scitimes@nytimes.com. Send letters to Science Editor, The New York Times, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018.
 

wdb

Senior Member
Messages
1,392
Location
London
I wish they'd stop calling it robust evidence, I'm pretty sure in other branches of medicine an unblinded trial with patient reported subjective measures, no comparable placebo control, and a modest 15% response over no treatment, would be considered extremely flimsy evidence.
 

Enid

Senior Member
Messages
3,309
Location
UK
Awful bore - White and cronies - trotting out the same old defensive stuff again and getting research into ME/CFS cause nowhere. Happily real research has now left them way behind. They appear like the tail trying to wag the dog still.
 

wdb

Senior Member
Messages
1,392
Location
London
There are definitely double standards, imagine if someone did the same unblinded, subjectively measured, no placebo control trial for crystal healing or powdered goat hoof, and called it robust evidence, they would be a laughing stock.
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
There are definitely double standards, imagine if someone did the same unblinded, subjectively measured, no placebo control trial for Crystal Batshit Therapy or Goat Exercise Testicles, and called it robust evidence, they would be a laughing stock.

edited, and ribbed, for your pleasure ;)
(I'm agreeing with ya, just making it more humorous, hehe)
 

Enid

Senior Member
Messages
3,309
Location
UK
Silverbade - do we care whether it's single, double or triple blinded - they make absolutely no contribution to the understanding of the pathogenesis - so what..