1. Patients launch a $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Leptin
Andrew Gladman reflects upon the recent IACFS/ME conference and the buzz surrounding a small molecule, leptin.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Implementing CBT for CFS in a mental health center: a benchmarking evaluation (Scheeres et al, 2008)

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Apr 11, 2014.

  1. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,469
    Likes:
    4,747
    I'm posting this now mainly because of the second message:

  2. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,469
    Likes:
    4,747
    Here's what the results section reported:
    Does anyone know if either or both of these two sets are different?
  3. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,469
    Likes:
    4,747
    They used a lax definition of recovery:
    Simon and Valentijn like this.
  4. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,202
    Likes:
    3,581
    Monmouth, UK
    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...

    fatigue
    MHC: 1.12 (95% CI + 0.85, 1.38).
    Benchmarks: 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.97, 1.89).

    Physical function
    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)
    biophile and Valentijn like this.
  5. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,469
    Likes:
    4,747
    Thanks Simon

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page