Treatment outcome in adults with CFS: a prospectiv​e study in England based on the CFS/ME NOD

[Dolphin]

An authors' correction note has been published.
It doesn't change anything substantial or the conclusions....
Just a few details...

Authors' Correction Note:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870018/

PDF:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870018/pdf/hct122.pdf


Below, I'll post the original text, in relation to correction no. 2, and what they now say it should have read, as I understand it:

The original text was as follows:
"About 74% (620 of 834) of patients had a decreased Chalder Fatigue score at follow-up and 64% (534 of 834) had improved by >2 points (our definition of a clinically useful improvement). In contrast, only 50% (416 of 834) of patients had an increased SF-36 physical function score at follow-up and only 16% (131 of 834) had improved by >22 points. In total, 14% (120 of 834) had clinically useful improvements on both scales."

And I think it should have read as follows:
"About 74% (620 of 834) of patients had a decreased Chalder Fatigue score at follow-up and 64% (534 of 834) had improved by >2 points (our definition of a clinically useful improvement). In contrast, only 50% (416 of 834) of patients had an increased SF-36 physical function score at follow-up and only 29% (### of 834) had improved by >11 points. In total, 25% (### of 834) had clinically useful improvements on both scales."

Call me cynical but I wonder whether perhaps they posted a correction note because it allowed them claim better results. I quite often point out errors to authors but only rarely are corrections published.

 

[Bob]

Call me cynical but I wonder whether perhaps they posted a correction note because it allowed them claim better results. I quite often point out errors to authors but only rarely are corrections published.

Indeed. I don't recall other authors or journals publishing corrections so freely, even when blatant errors are highlighted by the public.

 

[Esther12]

based on my googling, plus your comments:

CBT/GET
- Barts
- East London
- Bristol

Would have thought that Bart's was the biggest, but an AfME interview with Hazel O'Dowd(not sure of date of it) says now seeing 400 pa: the three CBT/GET services in this study saw 372, 160 & 157 patients in 2010

"Activity Management"
- Leeds/York
Sue Pemberton, consultant OT, was replaced last year and has set up a private service - the Leeds/York service now run by consultant liaison psychiatrist Dr Hiroko Agaki so think it now does CBT/GET. From her statement it seems likely that Leeds was the big Activity Management centre since it's long established and has played a lead role:

That would leave:
- Somerset
- Epsom & St Hellier

However, I'm not sure how clear-cut the distinction between CBT/GET and Activity Management really is in practice: CBT uses activity management and all the 'activity managment' centres use psychologists in the mix, though I don't know if Leeds did during the time of this study (2005-9).

A little OT, but I just stumbled upon this thread and it reminded me of White and Barts saying that these results (though not the paper) showed that their service gained the best results in the UK. How bad must some of the other GET centres have been then? If they're able to use claims about being the best to promote themselves, patients should also be allowed to know which services were the worst, by these standards.