Part 2: What to look for in a Special Issue of Journal of Health Psychology concerning the PACE trial
by James C Coyne August 01, 2017
Part 2: What to look for in the Special Issue of Journal of Health Psychology concerning the PACE trial
In a
continuation of the last blog post, this one provides brief summaries and links to eight additional contributions to the special issue of
Journal of Health Psychology. These articles include a reply to the PACE investigators’ response from Keith Geraghty, a defense of the trial from some friends and supporters (Petrie and Weinman) of the PACE investigators, and a commentary from Susanna Agardy on the conflicts of interest in this defense.
Apologies to the authors and readers for my not indicating yesterday that there were an additional eight summaries coming. Because of all the uncertainty about whether the special issue would be published on schedule or blocked, yesterday’s blog post was uploaded at the last minute and incomplete.
When the effort to block publication of the special issue failed, the PACE investigators got criticism posted at Science Media Centre. One commentary was attributed to anonymous sources at Oxford University and simply parroting things that the PACE investigators themselves have been saying all along. Another commentary was from Malcolm MacLeod, a former colleague of Michael Sharpe at University of Edinburgh, who also authored a paper with him. McLeod claims to have read the issue and found nothing of substance there. That was an amazing feat, because the Science Media Centre posted this critique only minutes before the special issue was available. We might conclude that McLeod is a speed reader. Judging from the superficiality of his comments, it could simply be a matter of his not having read the special issue
Who would’ve thought that a special issue of
Journal of Health Psychology could garner such publicity?
McLeod also indiscreetly disclosed that he was a member of a committee advising
PLOS One on whether to release to me the data from an article on the PACE trial. Availability of the data had been promised as a condition for publishing in
PLOS One. Yet, over a year after my request, it has still not been provided. However the
PLOS One article now prominently features an Expression of Concern, which often precedes a retraction. Regardless, McLeod’s disclosure cast doubt on the integrity of the decision-making process at
PLOS One, given his obvious conflict of interest.
As a critic of the PACE trial from the United States, I noticed early on that I was dealing with a tight close-knit network, strongly interconnected with the British establishment, a real charmed circle. The opposition to the publication of the special issue of
Journal of Health Psychology and the PACE investigators’ access to resources like Science Media Centre and placement of an article in
The Times and who served as go-to sources put this network on public display.
However, the brouhaha and the foiled effort to block publication of the special issue and this extraordinary attentionin the media has paradoxically generated considerable buzz about the special issue that would otherwise not have. We appreciate all the publicity we can get and we hope the PACE investigators will bring on some more. But for now, check out the brief summaries below and click on the links to the open access articles.
Special thanks to
blogger John Peters for having put together these links and summaries.
Eight articles from the Special Issue
Distress signals: Does cognitive behavioural therapy reduce or increase distress in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis? Keith R Laws
Reducing the psychological distress associated with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis is seen as a key aim of cognitive behavioural therapy. Crucially, the claim by National Institute of Clinical Excellence that cognitive behavioural therapy reduces distress in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis is not only at odds with what patients repeatedly report in surveys, but with their own gold-standard randomised controlled trial and meta-analytic data.
Cognitive behaviour therapy and objective assessments in chronic fatigue syndrome Graham McPhee
