GET QALY improvement not significantly better than SMC? This implies the GET QALY gains were not significantly different than for SMC, though table 6 does show a QALY gain of 0.034 for GET compard to SMC, which is a tad confusing. Fatigue & Function cost-effectiveness may be overstated This looks to me like they used the proportion who improved, while ignoring the proportion who worsened by the same amount (point © Dolphin), which could overstate the benefit (depends on proportions who worsened on CBT/GET vs SMC). Re: Proportion on Benefit may go up due to time lag Although we don't know the outcome of this analysis, the SMC group has the shortest average illness duration so is a crude proxy of this. At baseline, SMC has the lowest proportion on illness/disability benefits but has caught up by 12 months (proportion increasing from 34% to 58%, Table 4). So this is consistent with the idea that the increases in proportion on benefits is reflecting a time lag in awarding benefits rather than a deteoriation in health - though clearly it isn't conclusive. Just as important, none of the interventions reduced benefit levels, which is hardly a ringing endorsement of said treatments.