The Real ME: A Stock Photography Resource for the Media
We’ve all seen them in the news stories about ME/CFS: the guy in a suit at the office, yawning; the beautiful woman sitting at her desk with her immaculate make-up and elegantly coiffed hair, hand to her head and looking slightly pained.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

2003 - A randomised controlled trial of a psycho-educational intervention to aid reco

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Esther12, Nov 19, 2011.

  1. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    12,301
    Likes:
    35,101
    England (south coast)
    That graph, where they provide the results at six months but not at one-year follow-up, is the same as what the FITNET authors have done. They're reporting only the short-term results, and failing to point out that CBT had little or no effect at long-term-follow-up.

    The same happened in this paper, in which the authors pretend to report the FITNET results but fail to report the null long-term follow-up results:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756916?dopt=Abstract

    Great work in this thread, thanku Esther and @Purple. Very helpful. :thumbsup:
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2014
    WillowJ, Valentijn and Esther12 like this.
  2. Leopardtail

    Leopardtail Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes:
    680
    England
    What concerns me most is their use of likert scales in their questionnaires. They give no concrete indication of what 1 vs 10 on that scale means. In contrast those used by the MEA define with reasonable precision what 10 means, what 100 means. While the evaluation of scales is subjective (done by the patient) - the value of the evaluation is far greater if the meaning of each value is fixed. The way in which they are operating increases placebo distortion.

    For each of our symptom groups (immune, fatigue, mental function, bowels, etc) we need a concrete definition of the scale in use.

    If you have been feeling relatively well for a while then a small dip would seem much worse on a 1-100 scale vs if one had an increase in function after failing awful.

    We need definitions such as "I can function for 2.5seconds without mental strain", I can function for 10mins without mental strain etc etc.

    The same definitions need to be used in EVERY study thus making interventions comparable, and comparison of Biochemistry at different fatigue levels comparable.

    Even this methodology would not be ideal but it would be MUCH better.
     
    Snow Leopard likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page