• 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.

James Coyne: "Half year passes without release of PLOS One PACE trial data"

Messages
2,087

Yeah i don't understand that bit :
Agreement seems to be reached that any release of data will require a preregistered plan of analysis.

So in order to get data someone must pre register and state what they are going to analyse ? Or as part of the data release it will already be agreed how and who is going to review it ?

Does anyone know what this means ?
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
Yeah i don't understand that bit :


So in order to get data someone must pre register and state what they are going to analyse ? Or as part of the data release it will already be agreed how and who is going to review it ?

Does anyone know what this means ?

I think it means you've got to tell the PACE authors how you plan to analyse their data before they'll give you permission to access the data. Totally unacceptable, IMO.
 

Marky90

Science breeds knowledge, opinion breeds ignorance
Messages
1,253
I think it means you've got to tell the PACE authors how you plan to analyse their data before they'll give you permission to access the data. Totally unacceptable, IMO.

God, they get on my nerves. In that scenario they would never release the data on how the supposedly "recovered" did on the stept test e.g.

So screw that, they are going to release everything. Can`t believe this is even an issue.
 

Forbin

Senior Member
Messages
966
Agreement seems to be reached that any release of data will require a preregistered plan of analysis.


Sure. Preregister the plan of analysis with a third party and don't let the original authors see it or have a veto over it.
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
Sure. Preregister the plan of analysis with a third party and don't let the original authors see it or have a veto over it.

Data from other trials on PLOS One are available to everyone with no preconditions or restrictions. It's too late to expect a prespecified set of analyses to protect against bias in PACE: there's too much summary data on the trial already in the public domain.

Time to set the data free and judge any reanalysis/new analysis on its merits, including the influence of post-hocness.
 

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
Yeah. Nah.

Release the data in full to whomever asks for it, or refuse to release anything to anybody and have the paper retracted.

They're the only options.

The authors don't get to cherry pick favourable analysis plans. It is not their choice. That flies completely in the face of genuinely open, independent, and accountable science.

Alternative analyses should stand or fall on their own merit, independent of what the original authors/data generators want or believe.

This bargaining tactic is bullshit, and is not what the authors knowingly and willingly signed up to when choosing to publish in PLOS.

PLOS better not compromise on this one. There is a fundamental principle at stake here, with implications way beyond just the CFS/ME world.
 
Last edited:

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
If they stand behind there PACE study then there is no reason to withhold data...or play games as this appears to be...
Exactly. If their data is so solid and convincing, then should be happy for anybody to see it (appropriately anonymised, of course).
 

Sidereal

Senior Member
Messages
4,856
It would be disappointing if PLoS bent over for QMUL lawyers on this issue. It would defeat the whole purpose of their publishing model which is supposed to be an open & transparent alternative to the traditional secretive ivory tower approach of the Lancet et al.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
The latest communication suggests that the management of PLOS is still negotiating with lawyers from Queen Mary University, London. Agreement seems to be reached that any release of data will require a preregistered plan of analysis.

This is the kind of "agreement" the Chinese government would be proud of.

Communist science from the ministry of truth, hurrah for the scientific method.
 

panckage

Senior Member
Messages
777
Location
Vancouver, BC
Agreement seems to be reached that any release of data will require a preregistered plan of analysis.
Err... didn't the pace authors change their plan of analysis partway through the trial? Maybe they took out a patent on that so nobody else is allowed to do it now :rofl:

In reality I don't think this is an issue though. Once the data is released it can be analyzed however people want
 
Messages
2,087
In reality I don't think this is an issue though. Once the data is released it can be analyzed however people want
yeah its hard to see how full data release wouldnt lead to all sorts of analysing despite what might have been agreed.

Its not like they can say - despite your analysis revealing fundamental flaws leading to erroneous results, your analysis is not allowed under the agreement, sorry.