• 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, 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.

Letters sought in reply to PACE Trial article in a free newspaper for Irish doctors

D

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
If anyone wants to send in a reply to this, it'd be appreciated.
It was included in a free newspaper for Irish doctors.


Last year, following publishing a piece on the Santhouse et al. editorial in the British Medical Journal, they published not one but five letters over a series of weeks (John Greensmith, Tom Kindlon, Gerwyn Morris, Orla N Chomhra & Vance Spence (only two with Irish addresses) - that was most of the people who wrote in, as I recall.
They may be glad to fill up space in their newspaper.


People can also put comments online but letters would be preferred. You can always post your letter as a comment if you prefer.


If you sent in a letter to the Lancet, you could get a chance to re-use it (ordinary newspapers might find it too technical). Probably best to not put the references underneath - just put the name of the first author + et al. + year in brackets e.g. (White et al., 2011) to refer to Lancet paper. If you want me to look at it, feel free.

References aren't essential of course.

Even if your point doesn't relate to what is in the Irish Medical Times article, one can still criticise the study.


Probably best to keep letters under 400 words and ideally less than that again.
Address is: editor@imt.ie that's editor @ imt.ie


Don't forget to put your address in the letter and also a telephone number (which won't be published).


Thanks



http://bit.ly/hAvLon
i.e.
http://www.imt.ie/clinical/2011/03/cognitive-behavioural-therapy-not-harmful-in-chronic-fatigue.html

You are here: Home / Clinical times / Cognitive behavioural therapy not harmful in chronic fatigue

Cognitive behavioural therapy not harmful in chronic fatigue

March 18, 2011 By admin 1 Comment

Patient groups’ concerns that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy could be harmful for the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome can be allayed due to a large study showing that both are effective and safe.


But the randomised PACE trial of nearly 650 patients did find that adaptive pacing therapy (APT) – a therapy sometimes favoured by patient groups – was not more helpful in reducing fatigue or physical function than specialist medical care alone (SMC), contrary to the researchers’ initial hypothesis.

The British researchers randomised 160 people to each of the four treatment
groups: CBT, GET or APT combined with specialist medical care, and a final group with specialist medical care only.

GET was based on “deconditioning and exercise intolerance theories of chronic fatigue” and consisted of negotiated, gradual increases in exercise intensity over the period of intervention. APT was based on the “envelope theory of chronic fatigue” and consisted of identifying links between activity and fatigue followed by a plan to avoid exacerbations.

Before treatment began, patient expectations were high for both APT and GET but lower for CBT and SMC, the researchers reported.

Those treated with CBT or GET in combination with SMC did better with respect to both primary outcomes — fatigue, measured on the Chalder fatigue questionnaire and physical function, measured on the short form-36 physical function subscale.

The researchers concluded that both treatments were effective for chronic fatigue with “moderate” effect sizes. They suggested that the lack of benefit for APT combine with SMC could have been a result of the greater than expected improvement with SMC alone.

There were no more adverse reactions to the behavioural interventions than specialist care alone, a finding that was important according to two researchers from the Expert Centre for Chronic Fatigue in the Netherlands.

“This finding is important and should be communicated to patients to dispel unnecessary concerns about the possible detrimental effects of cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy, which will hopefully be a useful reminder of the potential positive effects of both interventions,”
they wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Lancet 2011; Online. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60096-2
Click to expand...
 
WillowJ

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Location
WA, USA
good find, Dolphin. :thumbs:

I've been crashing and hadn't finished my letter to the Lancet (writing is one of the hardest things to do, cognitively, even though one of my better skills when healthy), and this might be a better goal than submitting to Lancet.
 
Hope123

Hope123

Senior Member
Messages
1,266
Just a warning folks -- don't submit your ACTUAL Lancet letter if you already sent it in to Lancet. If you get your letter published somewhere else beforehand, some journals will likely NOT publish your letter in their journal even if it is selected. This is because they want first dibs. OTOH, once UK PACE responses have been published, you can link to your letter through Lancet. You can still use the same points, just put it in alternate phrasing.
 
D

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
WillowJ said:
good find, Dolphin. :thumbs:

I've been crashing and hadn't finished my letter to the Lancet (writing is one of the hardest things to do, cognitively, even though one of my better skills when healthy), and this might be a better goal than submitting to Lancet.
Click to expand...
The deadline for publication was 2 weeks from publication. It was unclear which publication date. One person was told:

The two-week deadline for submission of Correspondence refers to the date the relevant article was first published, so in this case the date of online publication. You should therefore submit your letter as soon as possible.

We will still consider submissions received after this deadline, but we may not be able to give them priority when compared to letters received within the allotted timeframe.
Click to expand...
However, this would mean that people who got the print journal would have no time to respond which seems hard to believe.

Anyway the date on the journal is a Saturday March 5 although it seems to become available on the Friday so many who missed the first deadline tried to get something in by March 18. But certainly I think best to get in anything by Saturday March 19.

I looked back on previous letters - they generally go in around 3 months after the article was in print edition.
 
WillowJ

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Location
WA, USA
oh, so supposing I could do it tonight (unlikely but slightly possible) it's still not too late to submit...
thanks :)
that's Saturday March 19, USA time?
 
D

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
WillowJ said:
oh, so supposing I could do it tonight (unlikely but slightly possible) it's still not too late to submit...
thanks :)
that's Saturday March 19, USA time?
Click to expand...
I'd be guessing. I think the peer review process is slow so not sure if they really have a hard deadline especially as not sure they will do too much work on this on Saturday or Sunday but I'm just guessing. Most other journals don't expect letters so quickly but then many other journals wouldn't get as many letters. I know when people were aiming for the Friday, most aimed for 5pm London time.

If you can send a letter to the Irish Medical Times, that'd be great. :thumbsup:
 
D

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
I just sent in a letter now.

I'm not sure I should post it somewhere where it might show up for search engines but I'm happy to show it to anyone who is thinking of writing in in case you want to avoid duplication. However, if they do it like last year, they might include one letter a week (they published five last year) and so they probably won't mind if some of the points are the same. The chances of all the points being the same are small. Thanks.
 
D

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
Dolphin said:
They published one letter this week: http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/03/caveat-needed-on-safe-and-effective-declaration.html

Plenty of time to get in another letter - they published five over a number of weeks last year as I said.
Click to expand...
Actually three letters this week (they put up two more today):

http://bit.ly/emo0Dw i.e.
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/04/the-pace-study-is-out-of-step-with-mecfs.html

http://bit.ly/hMGCUx i.e.
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/03/caveat-needed-on-safe-and-effective-declaration.html

http://bit.ly/eP8EfR i.e.
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/04/p...for-the-‘biggest-rift’-among-me-patients.html

Thanks to anybody else who wrote in - they might still put up your letter.
 
D

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
Dolphin said:
Actually three letters this week (they put up two more today):

http://bit.ly/emo0Dw i.e.
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/04/the-pace-study-is-out-of-step-with-mecfs.html

http://bit.ly/hMGCUx i.e.
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/03/caveat-needed-on-safe-and-effective-declaration.html

http://bit.ly/eP8EfR i.e.
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/04/p...for-the-‘biggest-rift’-among-me-patients.html

Thanks to anybody else who wrote in - they might still put up your letter.
Click to expand...
4th letter published this week.

http://bit.ly/f0noE0
i.e.
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/04/caution-is-still-required-on-get-and-me.html

I wonder will we top the 5 they published in reply to a piece last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.