• 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.

Critiques sought of the Cochrane Reviews of CBT and exercise therapy for CFS

Tom Kindlon

Senior Member
Messages
1,734
I'm dealing with a journalist who is interested in any critiques of the Cochrane Reviews of CBT and exercise therapy for CFS.

Please post them here and/or feel free to private message me or email me at tomkindlon at Hotmail dot com.
 

Tom Kindlon

Senior Member
Messages
1,734
In the attached file, on printed pages numbers 113-133, you will find some detailed comments by Robert Courtney and me on the exercise therapy review for CFS. Also replies from one of the Cochrane review authors, which I find unsatisfactory.
 

Attachments

  • Larun_et_al-2017-The_Cochrane_Library.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 14
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
A quick google search shows the following so far, will look further later.

Liaison psychiatrist says that Cochrane Review on exercise therapy in CFS was heavily influenced by controversial PACE Trial| 6 May 2017
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/201...enced-by-controversial-pace-trial-6-may-2017/

Concerns regarding the use of unplanned primary outcomes in the Cochrane review
https://sites.google.com/site/mecfs...ic-fatigue-syndrome/primary-outcome-switching

Probing an untrustworthy Cochrane review of exercise for “chronic fatigue syndrome”
http://wames.org.uk/cms-english/201...stworthy-cochrane-review-of-exercise-for-cfs/

Edit: Realised I should have added the titles for clarity
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
Why the Cochrane Collaboration needs to clean up conflicts of interest
https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...tion-needs-to-clean-up-conflicts-of-interest/

Why I am formally requesting the data set from a Cochrane review
https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...questing-the-data-set-from-a-cochrane-review/

Conflicts of interest in Cochrane reports on psychological interventions
https://www.coyneoftherealm.com/blo...chrane-reports-on-psychological-interventions

My response to an invitation to improve the Cochrane Collaboration by challenging its policies
https://www.coyneoftherealm.com/blo...ane-collaboration-by-challenging-its-policies

An open letter to the Cochrane Collaboration: Bill Silverman lies a-moldering in his grave
https://www.coyneoftherealm.com/blo...-bill-silverman-lies-a-moldering-in-his-grave
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
The Cochrane review is based in part on the PACE data but also each of the trials they use have similar flaws. I think @Jonathan Edwards commentry on the PACE trial methodology in Health Psychology applies to all the trials included in the Cochrane review. They are all open label trials using subjective measures.

Its somewhat false to use an argument that Cochrane supports GET/CBT even if PACE is bad is some what strange when PACE is included as data and PACE is one of the better run trials.
 

GreyOwl

Dx: strong belief system, avoidance, hypervigilant
Messages
266
Chalder told the Tribunal that "disclosure [of the PACE data] to the Cochrane review does not count as disclosure to independent scientists as all three of the PACE principal investigators sat on the review panel."
(page 31). Does that count?
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
Chalder told the Tribunal that "disclosure [of the PACE data] to the Cochrane review does not count as disclosure to independent scientists as all three of the PACE principal investigators sat on the review panel."
(page 31). Does that count?

er, no
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
I'm dealing with a journalist who is interested in any critiques of the Cochrane Reviews of CBT and exercise therapy for CFS.

Please post them here and/or feel free to private message me or email me at tomkindlon at Hotmail dot com.

I have not had time to read through the whole Cohcrane document but the summary and what I can find tend to confirm the comment from user9876. My critique of PACE in J Health Psychol almost certainly applies to all the studies included, making them all valueless. The situation seems to me very simple. In order to get reliable evidence for exercise therapy you either need to use very robust objective primary outcome measures or devise a completely new method for making use of subjective outcomes in the face of the impossibility of blinding. Until then methodologies capable of giving us useful data are simply not in place. I have great respect for the work done on the more detailed failings of these studies but they fall at the first fence anyway. There is no way that my boss would have allowed me to devise trials like this using pharmacological agents - we both knew that human nature is too fickle to believe any results in this context. The Cochrane authors' responses are naïve and ill-informed.
 

Tom Kindlon

Senior Member
Messages
1,734
I have not had time to read through the whole Cohcrane document but the summary and what I can find tend to confirm the comment from user9876. My critique of PACE in J Health Psychol almost certainly applies to all the studies included, making them all valueless. The situation seems to me very simple. In order to get reliable evidence for exercise therapy you either need to use very robust objective primary outcome measures or devise a completely new method for making use of subjective outcomes in the face of the impossibility of blinding. Until then methodologies capable of giving us useful data are simply not in place. I have great respect for the work done on the more detailed failings of these studies but they fall at the first fence anyway. There is no way that my boss would have allowed me to devise trials like this using pharmacological agents - we both knew that human nature is too fickle to believe any results in this context. The Cochrane authors' responses are naïve and ill-informed.
Okay, I have passed on the commentary and your comments above. Thank you.