Thanks. Do you have a link to where you heard this?
"The process of peer review etc just takes time though" ... but at least not as long as when the data is withheld
.
-
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.
PACE Trial and PACE Trial Protocol
- Thread starter Dolphin
- Start date
Thanks. Do you have a link to where you heard this?
"The process of peer review etc just takes time though" ... but at least not as long as when the data is withheld
.worldbackwards
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,051
Unless it's "fast tracked".
Unless it's "fast tracked".
But not if "fast tracked" were to just mean short cut. I would much prefer good quality, high integrity peer reviews. Minimal bureaucracy yes, minimal peer reviewing no.
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
I can't remember I'm afraid. Possible the recent foreign language article that quoted from Sharpe and one of the re-analysis statisticians? If not that, something similar. It was just a sentence on them planning to publish in a journal, with no further details on it.
Tom Kindlon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,734
She doesn't mention whether this is in connection with the PACE trial so on the law of averages it probably isn't but thought I would post it somewhere. Given that the usual model for CBT is basically that you should be able to get yourself better by changing one's supposed maladaptive beliefs and behaviours, one could see how it would have this effect.
Given that the usual model for CBT is basically that you should be able to get yourself better by changing one's supposed maladaptive beliefs and behaviours, one could see how it would have this effect.
Cheshire
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,129
Would it be worth trying to convince this guy that the PACE trial is the epitome of bad science, both because of its methodology and its harmful consequences for patients ?
John Arnold Made a Fortune at Enron. Now He’s Declared War on Bad Science
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arnold-waging-war-on-bad-science
John Arnold Made a Fortune at Enron. Now He’s Declared War on Bad Science
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arnold-waging-war-on-bad-science
They're already funding Ben Goldacre, so he'd probably just tell them PACE is awesome.
Cheshire
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,129
He isn't in an ambiguous relationship with SW, like Goldacre is. And I don't think Goldacre is praising PACE, he just tries to avoid the subject.
Jonathan Edwards
"Gibberish"
- Messages
- 5,256
Yes, I suspect the involvement of Goldacre is by the way. It might be worth trying to connect to Arnold.
Cheshire
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,129
A.B.
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,780
In the last year, the stage has been set for the implosion of PACE. It hasn't happened yet but all it needs at this point is widespread exposure of this story outside of our community.
Table 4 gives data on the numbers and percentages of patients in the PACE Trial who have the following. I'm not sure if we were given this data before.
All depressive disorders
Major depressive disorder
Minor depressive disorder
Dysthymic disorder
All anxiety disorders
Generalised anxiety disorder
Fibromyalgia
Graham
Senior Moment
- Messages
- 5,188
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Interestingly, scrolling down to "discussion", 123 patients were morbidly obese. That could affect our comments about walking distances (although, of course, not the lack of difference between the groups).
In table B at the bottom, it would be interesting to know which was centre F, the one with so many more NSAEs.
I'm too muddle-headed at the moment to work out the relevance, but I notice that, overall, the results in table 4 for those meeting ME criteria, or the "all psychiatric" have roughly equal percentages in the ≤4 and the >4 columns for those who met the criteria as for those who did not. But when you get down to specific psychological criteria, such as minor depressive, the difference is much greater between those who have it and those who do not (9/91 and 12/88).
In table B at the bottom, it would be interesting to know which was centre F, the one with so many more NSAEs.
I'm too muddle-headed at the moment to work out the relevance, but I notice that, overall, the results in table 4 for those meeting ME criteria, or the "all psychiatric" have roughly equal percentages in the ≤4 and the >4 columns for those who met the criteria as for those who did not. But when you get down to specific psychological criteria, such as minor depressive, the difference is much greater between those who have it and those who do not (9/91 and 12/88).
They use the definition of BMI >=30 as morbidly obese. I have never seen it as strict as that before.
Yes, they use the term incorrectly. It's obese, but not morbid unless there's certain other complications, from what I recall.