1. Patients launch $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!
The Pathway to Prevention (P2P) for ME/CFS: A Dangerous Process
Gabby Klein gives an overview of the P2P process, shedding light on the pitfalls with advice as to what we can do in protest ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

(PACE Trial) Response to FoI request: Numbers within normal ranges for CFQ and SF36 PF at baseline

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Tom Kindlon, Mar 16, 2013.

  1. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    254
    Likes:
    786
    -------------------------

    (Queen Mary, University of London) FOI Request: 2013/F42

    [​IMG]
    Snow Leopard, SOC, WillowJ and 8 others like this.
  2. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,346
    Likes:
    4,246
    Monmouth, UK
    Great work, <name>!

    Because no one else has yet, let me state the obvious: 3 patients were 'normal' at the start of the trial and met the recovery criteria for fatigue and function. A further 82 patients met the recovery criteria for fatigue or function at baseline. In all, 85 patients, 13%, met either fatigue or function recovery criteria, or both, before the trial began. Nice.
    Sasha, SOC, WillowJ and 4 others like this.
  3. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes:
    10,388
    England, UK
    So, in terms of physical function, 20 (12%) of the CBT group, and 15 (9%) of the GET group, already had a level of physical function that was considered 'recovered', on entry into the trial.

    And for Chalder fatigue, 3 (2%) of the GET group, already had a level of fatigue that was considered 'recovered', on entry into the trial.
    Purple, WillowJ, Sean and 1 other person like this.
  4. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,527
    Likes:
    2,004
    Sofa, UK
    Is it possible to determine whether those that were 'recovered' before they started 'treatment' were the same people who were included in the figures for those 'recovered' after the 'treatment'?

    I guess even if they weren't, that would mean they were people who were 'recovered' before the treatment, but not after the treatment. So from that point of view, those figures should be subtracted from the 'recovery' statistics whichever way you slice it.
    Sasha likes this.
  5. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,266
    Likes:
    5,461
    The new criteria for 'recovery' has additional components, such as requiring that patients not fulfil the criteria for CFS, so patients could not have fulfilled that criteria at the start of the trial. I think that added this as a way of artificially avoiding the absurdity of patients being 'sick' and 'cured' at the same time, but without needing to tighten the requirements for levels of fatigue or disability.
    Sean likes this.
  6. Peter Kemp

    Peter Kemp

    Messages:
    27
    Likes:
    125
    This is great, Tom. I would be curious to know if this data was generated in response to the FOI, or, if it was already available, when was it produced? You can probably guess where my dirty little mind is going! Did they generate this as part of the process of deciding where to put 'normal range'? The info above can only have been derived from the raw data to produce Likert scores correlating to 'normal range'. I imagine it was a simple enough database inquiry to produce, but still, if they did it specially for the FOI that was very nice of them.
    Sean likes this.
  7. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes:
    8,996
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    I think it just means things are a bigger mess and it's even more impossible to make any sense of the results :p You could subtract the ones that were normal on both CF and PF from the results (table 1 at journals.cambridge.org/psm/White) easily enough (-1 each to APT, SMC, and GET).

    But it doesn't look like they break down CF and PF in the "recovery" table. You could subtract the combined number of baseline CF-normal plus PF-normal from each group. But then you get negative 4 recovered patients in the SMC recovery group based on the CF and PF combined criteria (22 PF and CF "recovered" at the end, 26 either PF or CF normal at the start). If carrying through that subtraction from the final total of "recovered" patients and assuming the worst (that the recovered patients had normal PF and/or CF at the start), you get a theoretical recovery rate that looks like:
    APT: -9%
    CBT: 2%
    GET: 3%
    SMC: -13%

    Which is just another indication that this trial and the data presented are a bunch of meaningless babble.
    SOC likes this.
  8. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes:
    10,388
    England, UK
    I'd forgotten all about this thread and these figures.

    Thinking out loud...

    So does this mean that it was only necessary for physical function to improve in 10% of the participants in the CBT group in order for a 22% 'recovery' rate to be recorded?

    And taking the SMC group into account, in which 7% were reported to have 'recovered', does it mean that only an extra 3% of participants needed to improve in the CBT group, compared with SMC, for a 22% recovery rate to be recorded for the CBT group?

    (I'm not sure if either of these calculations are appropriate, considering that 16% of the SMC group had physical function in the normal range at baseline.)

    In any case, it isn't helpful that 12% of the CBT group were already in the recovery range, for physical function, at the start of the trial.
  9. Enid

    Enid Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes:
    840
    UK
    Big sigh Bob - guess I'm plus 3% one day and minus the next - what crashing idiots these people who try to fit into their stats are.
    Bob likes this.
  10. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,188
    Likes:
    11,260
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    I missed this as I was in hospital. Question: does this justify a charge of scientific fraud?
    Allyson and Bob like this.
  11. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes:
    4,562
    Not necessarily.

    However, on a wider note, the British Medical Association have just voted that non-publication of trial results is now to be considered research misconduct, and that doctors involved in withholding results should be referred to the GMC.

    http://www.alltrials.net/2013/bma-v...ion-of-trials-results-is-research-misconduct/

    I am not sure if that only means the failure to publish any data at all because the trial was unsuccessful, or if it also includes the failure to publish any (significant) "unflattering trial data".
    Sasha, MeSci, Tom Kindlon and 3 others like this.
  12. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,346
    Likes:
    4,246
    Monmouth, UK
    The key word is selective, so I think publishing postive data while withholding unfavourable data would be covered by the BMA motion.
    MeSci, Tom Kindlon, WillowJ and 2 others like this.
  13. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,188
    Likes:
    11,260
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Hmmm, if I believe this data, and without checking definitions yet again, then around twelve percent could never have had CFS under Fukuda or other definitions. If they were within normal function range they did not have a loss of fifty percent of functional capacity necessary for most definitions of CFS. Oxford based ineptitude strikes again. Now where is handy definition of the Oxford definition ...

    PS Still looking for a good version of Oxford, but I think it requires disabling fatigue. Anyone who is normal does NOT have even Oxford CFS. So twelve percent of the patients should not have been there at all. Or their definition of normal is wrong. ;)

    PPS http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1293107/pdf/jrsocmed00127-0072.pdf

    Clause (c) of the definition:

    "The fatigue is severe, disabling, and affects physical and mental functioning."
    Sasha, WillowJ and Valentijn like this.
  14. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes:
    10,388
    England, UK
    Interesting. If, at baseline, 12% of the CBT group had a level of physical functioning that was within the 'recovery' range, then can it be considered that the fatigue affected their physical functioning (if their physical functioning was considered 'recovered')?
    WillowJ and Valentijn like this.
  15. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes:
    4,562
    AllTrials is about both scenarios, but especially no data at all. This however leaves some ambiguity in what qualifies as "withholding unfavourable data". No doubt PACE would claim not to have done so, and regulators might still believe them. It is also more difficult to assert that unfavourable data is being withheld too long if we do not know enough about the unpublished data to judge whether it is unfavourable or not, seems more of a hindsight judgement, such as when the Nijmegen CBT school withheld unfavourable objective data for several years.

    It has been previously argued that the PACE employment/welfare data was withheld and turned out to be unfavourable, but also counter-argued that everything cannot be squeezed into a single paper. However, they sure took their sweet time publishing it about 18 months after the initial Lancet fanfare. PACE have recently fended off a FOI with claiming that the requested "deterioration" rates will be published soon, but I doubt that they would have published it soon without prompting.
    WillowJ and Valentijn like this.
  16. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,214
    Likes:
    1,961
    If I recall correctly, 12% is getting close to the net number of patients who benefit in any way, even under the most generous definition of 'benefit'.
    Bob likes this.
  17. SOC

    SOC Moderator and Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,295
    Likes:
    6,282
    USA

    You mean this wasn't considered research misconduct before? :eek:

    Geez, publishing all the data, in favor of your hypothesis or not, was beaten into me from day one. Even trying to spin the data would get you a field-wide dirty look and a bad reputation.

    Medical research manages to have it's own definition of science, doesn't it? Or is it just the psychs? Probably not. I suspect pharma-sponsored research has some similar problems.
    MeSci, Sean, Sea and 2 others like this.
  18. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,188
    Likes:
    11,260
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    About 15% appeared to benefit, but that was after comparison to the SMC control group of 15%, iirc. The claimed result was, iirc, 30%. So we can't be sure that this wasn't the baseline "improvement" from the SMC. Nor can we be sure that these patients remained well at the end - other patients may have improved, and they might have got worse.

    What we can say is that the data is inadequate to support their claims. This can be used to push for full disclosure of data.

    It may not have been clear from my post though that the alternative is that they were indeed unwell, but that criteria for normal are stuffed ... something we have noted before.
    Sean and WillowJ like this.
  19. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,188
    Likes:
    11,260
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    This problem was highlighted in big pharma research. Though they did tend to publish all the data from a study, they also liked to do a bunch of studies and publish only the favourable study. I do not recall details of this though.

    A related problem in CBT/GET research for CFS is the abandoning of obtaining objective data as it did not correlate with subjective data. If you had to abandon one of them, surely it would be the subjective data? In PACE this took the form of abandoning actometer measurement. All psychogenic hypotheses trials need objective data ... there is too much uncertainty in the diagnosis/theories for subjective data to have value.
    MeSci, Sean and SOC like this.
  20. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes:
    10,388
    England, UK
    I read somewhere, the other day, that good science is to create a hypothesis and then spend the rest of your time trying your hardest to disprove it.
    Sea likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page