Invest in ME Conference 12: First Class in Every Way
OverTheHills wraps up our series of articles on this year's 12th Invest in ME International Conference (IIMEC12) in London with some reflections on her experience as a patient attending the conference for the first time.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

BMJ: Reanalysis of PACE trial reignites row over chronic fatigue treatment (September 29)

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Tom Kindlon, Sep 29, 2016.

  1. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes:
    8,111
     
  2. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes:
    8,111
     
    AndyPR likes this.
  3. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes:
    8,111
     
  4. worldbackwards

    worldbackwards A unique snowflake

    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes:
    10,354
    Earth
    Can anyone put up the full text?
     
    Maggie21 likes this.
  5. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,570
    Likes:
    21,636
     
    Daisymay, Webdog and Valentijn like this.
  6. Gijs

    Gijs Senior Member

    Messages:
    639
    Likes:
    1,288
    Is White delusional? Maybe he can get help like CBT or Get for his false scienticic believes.
     
    Maggie21, OhShoot and Daisymay like this.
  7. mfairma

    mfairma Senior Member

    Messages:
    201
    Likes:
    1,035
    "[White] said that the more conservative thresholds had made a difference to the results. 'However, it made no difference to our conclusion that cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy are safe and moderately effective in improving outcomes for chronic fatigue syndrome.'"

    How surprising . . .
     
  8. worldbackwards

    worldbackwards A unique snowflake

    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes:
    10,354
    Earth
    Everyone dropping dead and being reanimated as flesh eating creatures of the night would make no difference to that conclusion.
     
    Maggie21, Hutan, ahmo and 9 others like this.
  9. TiredSam

    TiredSam The wise nematode hibernates

    Messages:
    2,543
    Likes:
    19,647
    Germany
    I can't read the article, but the title doesn't bode well - I would have preferred "uncovers truth" to "reignites row", which makes us sound, what's the word ... vexatious?

    That's the problem. It should have done. Look up "statistically insignificant".
     
    Maggie21, Hutan, Solstice and 4 others like this.
  10. worldbackwards

    worldbackwards A unique snowflake

    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes:
    10,354
    Earth
    "At long term follow up, the patients in the CBT and GET arms had formed into packs which hunted down prey in the streets, ripped their heads from their shoulders and feasted on their exposed organs and intestines. The only way in which they could be repelled was with a bullet to the head or a stake driven directly through the heart.

    The authors feel that this conclusively proves that the treatments are both safe and effective and fulfil all criteria for recovery as it would be understood by the general population..."
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2016
    Maggie21, Skippa, Hutan and 6 others like this.
  11. Cheesus

    Cheesus Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes:
    4,707
    UK
    I don't understand. Either the patients improved or they didn't. The criteria for recovery shouldn't make a difference to that.

    What has happened here that means one person reads the results as an improvement whereas another reads the results as no improvement? What was the difference between the two analyses?
     
  12. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,282
    Likes:
    26,760
    CBT/GET were associated with some minor improvement in self-report outcomes that look likely to have been the result of nothing more than bias... these results were then spun to allow researchers to make bold claims about recovery that depended in a very weak definition of 'recovery'.


    or "reveals the BMJ have been talking bullshit".
     
    Maggie21, Hutan, Solstice and 4 others like this.
  13. Glycon

    Glycon World's Most Dangerous Hand Puppet

    Messages:
    301
    Likes:
    477
    ON, Canada
    :bang-head:
     
    Maggie21, Solstice, Jan and 2 others like this.
  14. Cheesus

    Cheesus Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes:
    4,707
    UK
    So the very minor improvements were amplified because of PW's methodology?
     
  15. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,282
    Likes:
    26,760
    Along with other problems too. Going through the specific criteria used is probably the best way of understanding things. I can't think what the best summary is now. Maybe parts 1-3 of Tuller's work?
     
  16. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,570
    Likes:
    21,636
    It hasn't been demonstrated that there really was improvement. The minor improvement on questionnaires probably reflects a transient placebo effect (no diff. between groups at followup).

    The walking test shows no clinically significant improvement but about 25% of patients (30% in GET group) didn't actually do this test at 52 weeks, and they would probably have brought these results down further because worse health is a likely explanation for refusing this test.

    PACE is even worse than what the reanalysis shows. This is important to keep in mind.
     
    Maggie21, ukxmrv, Hutan and 5 others like this.
  17. Cheesus

    Cheesus Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes:
    4,707
    UK
    Thanks i will check it out.
     
    Esther12 likes this.
  18. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,570
    Likes:
    21,636
    White et. al. feel justified in claiming the treatment works because transient improvement on questionnaires seems to be accepted as evidence of an effective treatment in this branch of psychiatry. It's bad science though.
     
    Maggie21, Solstice, TiredSam and 2 others like this.
  19. Cheesus

    Cheesus Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes:
    4,707
    UK
    Speaking of bad science, I wish Ben Goldacre would have some input, but having just searched his name on the forum I see he is chums with Wessley.
     
    PhoenixDown and Dolphin like this.
  20. IreneF

    IreneF Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes:
    2,328
    San Francisco
    One of the hallmarks of a "placebo effect" is that patients say they feel better in some way, but objective tests reveal no improvement. Placebo seems to work solely on a subjective level. You might think, "what's the harm," but "feeling better" can actually be detrimental:
    https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih...bo-improves-asthma-symptoms-not-lung-function

    Because people respond to attention, one way to encourage a positive outcome is to pay lots of attention to study subjects and rely on questionnaires instead of tests of physical function. See the Hawthorne effect for an example of how people respond:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

    Of course, if you define the condition under study as psychological, "feeling better" becomes a desirable outcome.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page