Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Sasha, Nov 6, 2015.
Haven't read it yet:
I already bunged it on the extant KL thread:
Interesting points on follow up data with regard to CBT/GET effectiveness.
I think a lot of people will have stopped reading that thread, though - wanted to make sure people noticed the new article.
It could be said that both CBT & GET hindered improvement after 52 weeks, as the SMC & APT groups experienced faster improvements after 52 weeks. I wonder if patients will be told this? In any case, CBT & GET offered no treatment benefits compared to usual care when assessed at 2.5 years. I wonder if patients will be told this?
I still haven't read the new paper properly though, so will have to come back to this blog later. Really pleased that both Coyne and Laws seem to be showing an interest.
... and consistent with what patients have been saying all along.
A simpler thing to look at is this image in another thread: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...r-get-after-52-weeks.40884/page-4#post-659274
The PACE Trial authors tried to claim that the improvements seen in the APT and SMC-only groups were due to people getting extra CBT or GET, but the data from these groups doesn't back it up (people in these groups who didn't do CBT or GET had similar improvements). Keith Laws looks at a few issues but this point wouldn't stand out I think.
I thought it was a pretty easy read, despite including some statistical claims. Very accessible, and makes a lot of good points.
It is the sort of thing that is hard to get through and he did make clear points that were understandable and readable. I really do love Simon's graph as well.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.