Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Apr 11, 2014.
I'm posting this now mainly because of the second message:
Here's what the results section reported:
Does anyone know if either or both of these two sets are different?
They used a lax definition of recovery:
The first thing to say is that this is a weird way to look at effectiveness - pre-post treatment rather than treatment vs control. Much of the pre-post 'effect' could be placebo or natural improvement, which is why Cochrane Reviews, for instance, don't use it.
To add to the problem, you can't compare different patient groups eg if one clinic had patients who had been ill for less time and were younger, they would be expected to perform better than those from a clinic with older patients who had been ill for longer. Comparisons of treatment vs control helps take account of such differences.
So I don't think the comparisons are valid, and I certainly don't think you can apply formal statistical tests to the data without knowing if the patient pops are similar.
If the figures were comparable...
MHC: 1.12 (95% CI + 0.85, 1.38).
Benchmarks: 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.97, 1.89).
MHC: 0.64 (95% CI = 0.38, 0.89)
Benchmarks: 1.04 (95% CI = 0.63, 1.44).
In both cases the 95% confidence intervals of the benchmark scores include the mean MHC score, so it would be reasonable to say they weren't different. I certainly wouldn't risk a formal stats test on them (& would need n and SD for that)
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.