Professor & patients' paper on the solvable biological challenge of ME/CFS: reader-friendly version
Simon McGrath provides a patient-friendly version of a peer-reviewed paper which highlights some of the most promising biomedical research on ME/CFS ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

A cost effectiveness of the PACE trial

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by user9876, Aug 1, 2012.

  1. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes:
    14,733
    Thanks.

    I can't remember if the PACE CBT manual includes stuff about 'overcoming a reliance on caregivers' type stuff. I've seen that sort of thing in other CBT plans...

    I just checked the shorter participants guide for CBT and found this:

    Ugh... I really felt dirty reading some of the other parts of that. I think that the more I read of this stuff, the more I hate it.

    More generally I think there would be a real danger that interventions founded upon models that assume patients have greater control over their symptoms would also be more likely to lead to a degree of response bias in questionnaires on the amount of support taken.

    I had a look though the APT participants guide and couldn't find anything similar.

    I don't think it's fair to assume that this would lead to people with APT to make use of more support, but I found it, so many as well post it here too.

    tbh, I didn't much like reading the APT guide either!
     
    Sidereal, peggy-sue, Simon and 3 others like this.
  2. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,587
    Likes:
    16,501
    Yes, it's important to point out that the reliability of the whole supposed cost-effectiveness value for CBT and GET from a societal perspective largely depends on participants accurately reporting this one measure (as there wasn't much difference in anything else).
     
  3. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    804
    Likes:
    3,593
    My latest comment on the PACE Trial cost effectiveness paper:
     
    Valentijn and Simon like this.
  4. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    804
    Likes:
    3,593
    I just posted another comment:
    http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=78707
     
    Min, Valentijn and biophile like this.
  5. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,587
    Likes:
    16,501
    I just read:



    In the statistical analysis plan for the PACE Trial, one of the analyses mentioned was valuing the cost of informal care at zero. This was not reported in the paper proper.

    Also, in the
    This was not explicitly done but when the issue was brought up, Paul McCrone the corresponding author said the therapies were not cost effective if the estimated cost was increased by 50%. They were thus certainly not cost effective if they were increased by 100%.
     
    Esther12 likes this.
  6. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes:
    6,792
    From an economics perspective it would be interesting to apply a supply and demand model to treatment costs since supply of treatment (being based on having trained staff) is not elastic and hence costs would be expected to increase (especially now we have a market for health in the UK). However, I seem to remember that the cost effectiveness was quite marginal so treatments would quickly become not cost effective.

    Also given the patient surveys showing serious deteriation with GET and CBT could they these costs be factored in and then their analysis would probably collapse.
     
    Valentijn, catly and Dolphin like this.
  7. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,693
    Likes:
    14,733
    Has that been mentioned in the PLoS comments? I saw that some of these things had been.
     
  8. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,587
    Likes:
    16,501
    Yes, it has been.
     
    Valentijn and Esther12 like this.
  9. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,587
    Likes:
    16,501
    Valentijn and Kati like this.
  10. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,587
    Likes:
    16,501
    It would be interesting to think of ways the PACE Trial data that was used in the cost effectiveness paper could be re-analysed. If anyone has ideas, feel free to share.
     
    Simon and Valentijn like this.
  11. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,969
    Likes:
    3,351
    Sofa, UK
    It occurred to me that it might be an interesting idea to prepare a public plan for re-analysis of the data ahead of its release. I wonder whether it would be a good idea to specify the protocol for re-analysis ahead of time? That way, you might pre-empt the inevitable claims that you have done a post-hoc analysis, cherry-picked to make it look the way you want it to look. Would there be any way to publicly specify and review some of the analyses we might wish to do with this data? After all, that's what we demand of regular science for it to be considered valid.
     
  12. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes:
    11,438
    Monmouth, UK
    Good point. One obvious way to reanalyse the data, of course, is as defined in the authors' published protocol. That way is totally free of bias or any cherry-picking. James Coyne could simply say in a blog how he planned to analyse the data if that blog is published before the data is released.

    And of course, you can always do further analysis once you have the data, but it's good practice to make clear that this is exploratory analysis.

    From memory, when James Coyne has re-analysed stuff before, or even commented on published data, he's focused on using the obvious eg for the PACE trial emphasising the difference between treatment groups at long-term follow-up ie good practice, rather than rummaging around looking for quirky stuff.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2015
    Mark, user9876 and Valentijn like this.
  13. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes:
    6,792

    An interesting analysis would be to compare the QALYS scores for different countries. Each has different norms as to how they fit to the raw Eq5d data and given their was only a small difference (0.05) and only significant for CBT I wonder if this is true in all countries. There have been papers pointing out issues with the EQ5D scale when different county norms are applied as it leads to different results. Following this line of reasoning it would be interesting to look at sensitivity of the results to small changes in the model - if I remember correctly the norms for the UK were generated using a linear regression over survey data where some of the residuals were more that the 0.05 (but its along time since I read about this) and I have often wondered how potential measurement errors should effect significance (I assume the larger the error in the measurement system the harder it is to conclude a significant result). So an analysis with slight variations of the model would be interesting.

    More generally I felt that they should have quoted the individual dimensions of the eq5d scale which seems to be a common (if not recommended) reporting practice. Ideally these could be correlated with other measurements. I am a big believer that all variables should give a consistent picture or a good explanation is needed so for example the mobility dimension in the eq5d scale should correlate with the 6mwt, fitness test as well as mobility elements of the sf36-pf scale. If not there must be doubt over the validity of some of the scales and results when applied in this context (e.g. with interventions aimed at changing perceptions of abilities).
     
    Dolphin, Valentijn and Simon like this.
  14. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,587
    Likes:
    16,501
    This may have been mentioned before:
    In the statistical analysis plan (which came out after the cost effectiveness paper was published), the PACE Trial investigators said they would:

    What they actually did was

    Initially I had interpreted the £14.60 figure as something they had said they would do. However, what they actually said they would do was use "the cost of a homecare worker". I would imagine that the cost of a homecare worker would be less than the figure for national mean earnings and so it looks to me on this reading that the £14.60 figure is completely new.

    I have forgotten at this stage what has been discussed in the comments on the PLoS one site so perhaps this exact point has been made?
     
    Valentijn, Bob and Esther12 like this.
  15. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,587
    Likes:
    16,501
    I had previously wondered what the following referred to:

    I believe I have now figured it out.


    However this is not controlling for baseline scores.

    In terms of raw scores, 5 more people in the APT group were receiving income benefits at the end compared to 3 in the CBT group. This difference wouldn't be significant.

    The differences at baseline were nearly significant:
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2016
    Valentijn likes this.
  16. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,587
    Likes:
    16,501
    Some other calculations that were not statistically significant.

    Table 3:


    http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/ttest2/

    -----


    I stuck the data from the left of Table 2 into a statistical calculator and using a t-test, it wasn't close to being statistically significant:


    http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/contingency2/


    I stuck the data from the right of Table 2 into a statistical calculator and using a t-test, it wasn't close to being statistically significant:


     
    ukxmrv, Kati and Valentijn like this.
  17. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,587
    Likes:
    16,501

    http://www.virology.ws/2016/05/23/an-open-letter-to-plos-one/

    ---
    New Phoenix Rising thread:
    http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...niello-et-al-an-open-letter-to-plos-one.44771
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2016 at 3:13 PM
    Valentijn and Kati like this.
  18. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,587
    Likes:
    16,501
    Valentijn, Bob, Graham and 2 others like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page