May 12, 2017 Is International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day
International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day is May 12th, 2017. Jody Smith shares some information about upcoming events and ways you can be heard ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

James Coyne: "Half year passes without release of PLOS One PACE trial data"

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Sasha, May 9, 2016.

  1. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,789
    Likes:
    34,216
    UK
  2. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,523
    Likes:
    35,226
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    He is suggesting PLOSone should declare a deadline for release of data or the paper should be retracted.
     
    justy, julieduzyoga, PennyIA and 16 others like this.
  3. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes:
    28,192
    Valentijn, Justin30 and ukxmrv like this.
  4. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes:
    9,863
    Yeah i don't understand that bit :
    So in order to get data someone must pre register and state what they are going to analyse ? Or as part of the data release it will already be agreed how and who is going to review it ?

    Does anyone know what this means ?
     
    actup and Asa like this.
  5. Asa

    Asa Senior Member

    Messages:
    175
    Likes:
    526
    If you provide smoke and mirrors to our liking, we'll release data of our choosing? (PACE is like beer goggles for data!)
     
    Orla, Valentijn, justy and 4 others like this.
  6. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,789
    Likes:
    34,216
    UK
    I think it means you've got to tell the PACE authors how you plan to analyse their data before they'll give you permission to access the data. Totally unacceptable, IMO.
     
  7. TiredSam

    TiredSam The wise nematode hibernates

    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes:
    21,539
    Germany
    Presumably they'd find the answer "properly" unacceptable?
     
  8. Marky90

    Marky90 Science breeds knowledge, opinion breeds ignorance

    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes:
    4,541
    God, they get on my nerves. In that scenario they would never release the data on how the supposedly "recovered" did on the stept test e.g.

    So screw that, they are going to release everything. Can`t believe this is even an issue.
     
    Sean, Battery Muncher, BurnA and 2 others like this.
  9. Hilary

    Hilary Senior Member

    Messages:
    190
    Likes:
    1,060
    UK
    As I understand it, the paper was published in PLOS on condition that, if requested, the authors would release the data. How can they then be allowed retrospectively to apply conditions to that release?? All wrong.
     
  10. Forbin

    Forbin Senior Member

    Messages:
    960
    Likes:
    4,026

    Sure. Preregister the plan of analysis with a third party and don't let the original authors see it or have a veto over it.
     
    Valentijn and Sean like this.
  11. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,523
    What genuinely independent third party is there?
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2016
    Daisymay and Mrs Sowester like this.
  12. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,789
    Likes:
    34,216
    UK
    Data from other trials on PLOS One are available to everyone with no preconditions or restrictions. It's too late to expect a prespecified set of analyses to protect against bias in PACE: there's too much summary data on the trial already in the public domain.

    Time to set the data free and judge any reanalysis/new analysis on its merits, including the influence of post-hocness.
     
  13. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,257
    Likes:
    17,985
    Yeah. Nah.

    Release the data in full to whomever asks for it, or refuse to release anything to anybody and have the paper retracted.

    They're the only options.

    The authors don't get to cherry pick favourable analysis plans. It is not their choice. That flies completely in the face of genuinely open, independent, and accountable science.

    Alternative analyses should stand or fall on their own merit, independent of what the original authors/data generators want or believe.

    This bargaining tactic is bullshit, and is not what the authors knowingly and willingly signed up to when choosing to publish in PLOS.

    PLOS better not compromise on this one. There is a fundamental principle at stake here, with implications way beyond just the CFS/ME world.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2016
    Skycloud, ballard, Daisymay and 11 others like this.
  14. Justin30

    Justin30 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes:
    1,280
    If they stand behind there PACE study then there is no reason to withhold data...or play games as this appears to be...
     
  15. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,257
    Likes:
    17,985
    Exactly. If their data is so solid and convincing, then should be happy for anybody to see it (appropriately anonymised, of course).
     
    Justin30 likes this.
  16. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,097
    Likes:
    17,177
    It would be disappointing if PLoS bent over for QMUL lawyers on this issue. It would defeat the whole purpose of their publishing model which is supposed to be an open & transparent alternative to the traditional secretive ivory tower approach of the Lancet et al.
     
    Asa, GreyOwl, Daisymay and 9 others like this.
  17. Chrisb

    Chrisb Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes:
    5,359
    Yes.....But do you not feel a certain a certain anticipation at the prospect of JC's blog which would follow such a decision? There seems already to be a feeling that the world is not what he thought it to be.
     
    Justin30, Webdog, Sidereal and 4 others like this.
  18. Large Donner

    Large Donner Senior Member

    Messages:
    866
    Likes:
    3,864
    This is the kind of "agreement" the Chinese government would be proud of.

    Communist science from the ministry of truth, hurrah for the scientific method.
     
    Solstice, adreno, GreyOwl and 4 others like this.
  19. panckage

    panckage Senior Member

    Messages:
    631
    Likes:
    747
    Vancouver, BC
    Err... didn't the pace authors change their plan of analysis partway through the trial? Maybe they took out a patent on that so nobody else is allowed to do it now :rofl:

    In reality I don't think this is an issue though. Once the data is released it can be analyzed however people want
     
    Cheshire, BurnA, Ritto and 2 others like this.
  20. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes:
    9,863
    yeah its hard to see how full data release wouldnt lead to all sorts of analysing despite what might have been agreed.

    Its not like they can say - despite your analysis revealing fundamental flaws leading to erroneous results, your analysis is not allowed under the agreement, sorry.
     
    Sean, Esther12, mango and 1 other person like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page