This is again probably a minority interest. However, a PACE Trial paper is coming out soon looking at recovery rates (using different definitions for recovery, I think) and I believe the definitions will use the SF-36 physical functioning (PF) scores. This is the secondary outcome measure for recovery they said they would publish in the published protocol: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/7/6 However, judging by their response to a FOI request, the PACE Trial investigators don't intend to publish this data. People will recall that they claimed a score of 60 represented normal physical functioning/that participants physical functioning was "back to normal". I've chosen 65 as 65 was the entry criteria threshold so I think they are unlikely to use a cut-off point of that or lower. Other papers also look at "recovery" and "full recovery" so data collected here could be useful for various studies. Ideally put the entry criteria for the study if you can find it, along with the information they give on mean and SD (or other measures). Indeed, IQR (interquartile ranges would be even better as they could show definitively that around 25% had that score or better). I'll give an example in my next message.