Further commentary on the PACE trial: Biased methods and unreliable outcomes

[BurnA]

Abstract
Geraghty in the year 2016, outlines a range of controversies surrounding publication of results from the PACE trial and discusses a freedom of information case brought by a patient refused access to data from the trial. The PACE authors offer a response, writing ‘Dr Geraghty’s views are based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the PACE trial’. This article draws on expert commentaries to further detail the critical methodological failures and biases identified in the PACE trial, which undermine the reliability and credibility of the major findings to emerge from this trial.

http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/iXpCNJk6zd34nFpSy4NK/full

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874968379693686784

 

[JaimeS]

The Journal of Health Psychology -- if it weren't a conflict of interest, I'd send them a fruit basket. What a breath of fresh air they've been as compared to the intractable Lancet.

 

[AndyPR]

Lol, sounds like the start of a film or a book, " @Keith Geraghty , in the year 2016,...", perhaps could have been continued "rode bravely forth, to smite the evil BPS cult, and destroy, once and for all, their deadly weapon, PACE."

But seriously, thank you Keith for all your efforts.

 

[trishrhymes]

Good summing up of most of the arguments. Thank you for all your hard work, @Keith Geraghty.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Well done, Keith! Thank you

 

[Barry53]

The Journal of Health Psychology -- if it weren't a conflict of interest, I'd send them a fruit basket. What a breath of fresh air they've been as compared to the intractable Lancet.

Could always send the Lancet some fruit cakes if you like? (English vernacular)

Edit: Just realised (thanks to google) that in some slang this has derogatory sexual connotations, which is not what I am referring to here.

 

[Barry53]

I know that this has been hacked to death in the past, but I can't resist.

‘too stringent’ - When the PACE authors state this, it begs the obvious question: too stringent for what? Which then begs the obvious answer: Too stringent to get the results they were determined to get. It's like a car being MOT'd and failing because of poor braking efficiency, and then saying the MOT is "too stringent", so modifying the MOT test criterion so it passes! It's such mind bogglingly blatant gamesmanship.

‘best evidence’ - is incredibly subjective. The best t*rd in a bucket of sh*t is still a t*rd.

 

[Countrygirl]

Death threat alert!

Couldn't resist this

A good idea from China

Anyone like to start a petition to encourage our government to introduce this law into the UK?


https://www.statnews.com/2017/06/23...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Chinese courts call for death penalty for researchers who commit fraud
By IVAN ORANSKY @ivanoransky and ADAM MARCUS @armarcus

JUNE 23, 2017

ED JONES/AFP/GETTY IMAGES


An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth — a life for a lab book?

In the past few months, China has announced two new crackdowns on research misconduct — one of which could lead to executions for scientists who doctor their data.

Scientists have been sounding alarms for years about the integrity of research in China. One recent survey estimated that 40 percent of biomedical papers by Chinese scholars were tainted by misconduct. Funding bodies there have in the past announced efforts to crack down on fraud, including clawing back money from scientists who cheat on their grants.

This month, in the wake of a fake peer review scandal that claimed 107 papers by Chinese scholars, the country’s Ministry of Science and Technology proclaimed a “no tolerance” policy for research misconduct — although it’s not clear what that might look like. According to the Financial Times, the ministry said the mass retractions “seriously harmed the international reputation of our country’s scientific research and the dignity of Chinese scientists at large.”

But a prior court decision in the country threatened the equivalent of the nuclear option. In April courts approved a new policy calling for stiff prison sentences for researchers who fabricate data in studies that lead to drug approvals. If the misconduct ends up harming people, then the punishment on the table even includes the death penalty. The move, as Nature explained, groups clinical trial data fraud with counterfeiting so that “if the approved drug causes health problems, it can result in a 10-year prison term or the death penalty, in the case of severe or fatal consequences.”

 

[TiredSam]

fake peer review scandal

That's an interesting phrase that could do with being introduced in the UK.

Along with the death penalty for research fraud which leads to harming people, of course.

Sounds like some of our BPS friends may be safer in Afghanistan after all.

 

[Barry53]

Hmm, China takes it quite seriously then ...

 

[Valentijn]

The death penalty is extreme and inhumane, but criminal charges for research fraud that harms patients sounds like a good idea. At the very least, academic fraud and academic dishonesty should have serious career and funding repercussions. But regulatory bodies in the UK don't seem to give a damn, and just keep dishing out the money to the same quacks.

 

[TiredSam]

The death penalty is extreme and inhumane

I've just remembered I'm against the death penalty, so thanks for that reality check. I used to be such a mild chap.

 

[Valentijn]

I've just remembered I'm against the death penalty, so thanks for that reality check. I used to be such a mild chap.

It helps to pretend the researchers are extremely stupid or delusional, instead of merely dishonest and unscrupulous about hurting people.

 

[Luther Blissett]

Thank you very much @Keith Geraghty for all the work you are doing, along with having to deal with people making your working life 'difficult', it is appreciated and I hope you find some comfort in that fact that it is a deeply ethical and humane project(s).

best evidence’ - is incredibly subjective. The best t*rd in a bucket of sh*t is still a t*rd.

I've just remembered I'm against the death penalty, so thanks for that reality check. I used to be such a mild chap.

A compromise is in the offing, @TiredSam :

turd polishing
The act of trying to make something hopelessly weak and unattractive appear strong and appealing. An impossible process that usually results in a larger, uglier turd.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=turd polishing

In fact they would obviously relish this task while imprisoned, as they do like to stress that 'Work makes you healthy and provides meaning'

 

[Barry53]

I doubt China's motives are so honourable. Probably less about patient safeguards and more about national image.

 

[Valentijn]

I doubt China's motives are so honourable. Probably less about patient safeguards and more about national image.

And another way to get rid of anyone with the wrong enemies.

 

[RogerBlack]

Chinese research is (perhaps rightly) getting a _terrible_ reputation.
Something reasonably needs to be done - is this an appropriate something - probably not.

 

[Snowdrop]

Chinese research is (perhaps rightly) getting a _terrible_ reputation.
Something reasonably needs to be done - is this an appropriate something - probably not.

Perhaps it's along the lines of 'weapon's of mass destruction' -- nobody really expects to use them because the results are so extreme the mere threat is deterrent enough.

 

[RogerBlack]

Perhaps it's along the lines of 'weapon's of mass destruction' -- nobody really expects to use them because the results are so extreme the mere threat is deterrent enough.

This will be why the murder rate in US states with the death penalty is so much lower than those without the death penalty. (it's not).

Rare extreme punishments do not enter into peoples heads when they're doing a thing.
If policing was such that 50% of study authors with malpractice in were executed, that's of course a rather different thing.

 

[Snowdrop]

This will be why the murder rate in US states with the death penalty is so much lower than those without the death penalty. (it's not).

Rare extreme punishments do not enter into peoples heads when they're doing a thing.
If policing was such that 50% of study authors with malpractice in were executed, that's of course a rather different thing.

You're right. Though my comment was a bit tongue in cheek (really hard to tell I know). Humans are such bold creatures, very little deters us.