• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

PACE Trial statistical analysis plan

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
(In case anyone missed it)
The journalist, David Tuller DrPH, on Wednesday posted a substantial piece on the PACE Trial:

TRIAL BY ERROR: The Troubling Case of the PACE Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study
http://www.virology.ws/2015/10/21/trial-by-error-i/

There's an introduction and summary at the start if you don't want to take on the whole thing.

It's being discussed in this PR thread:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...he-pace-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-study.40664/

ME Network have also posted their own summary piece:
http://www.meaction.net/2015/10/21/david-tuller-tears-apart-pace-trial/

Part two of David Tuller's piece is at:
http://www.virology.ws/2015/10/22/trial-by-error-ii/

Cort Johnson has done one of his easy-to-read pieces on it here:

http://www.cortjohnson.org/blog/201...-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-pace-cbt-get-trial/
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
This may have been mentioned before:
In the statistical analysis plan (which came out after the cost effectiveness paper was published), the PACE Trial investigators said they would:

The main analyses will use an informal care unit cost based on the replacement method (where the cost of a homecare worker is used as a proxy for informal care). We will alternatively use a zero cost and a cost based on the national minimum wage for informal care. We will also conduct sensitivity analyses around the costs attached to lost employment.
http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/14/1/386
What they actually did was

Unpaid informal care from family/friends was measured by asking patients how many hours of care were provided because of fatigue. Alternative methods exist for valuing informal care, with the opportunity cost and replacement cost approaches being the most recognised. We adopted the former and valued informal care at £14.60 per hour based on national mean earnings [16]
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040808

Initially I had interpreted the £14.60 figure as something they had said they would do. However, what they actually said they would do was use "the cost of a homecare worker". I would imagine that the cost of a homecare worker would be less than the figure for national mean earnings and so it looks to me on this reading that the £14.60 figure is completely new.

I have forgotten at this stage what has been discussed in the comments on the PLoS One site so perhaps this exact point has been made?