Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Tom Kindlon, Feb 28, 2017.
I just posted a comment on this on PubMed Commons:
Tom Kindlon 2017 Feb 28 3:44 p.m. (just added)
Bravo. Take 'm down. Ugh. Can't believe Knoop is being promoted to professor.
So one group got something, the other got nothing and was probably disappointed since they did visit a hospital with the intention to find some help.
It's the same old problem all these CBT/GET studies have: everything is set up to introduce bias in favor of the intervention preferred by the authors.
So they didn't use the threshold of 60+ on the SF 36 physical functioning subscale used in the PACE trial.
I find it hilarious that it was thought worth trying to find (and then reporting) a relationship between the mean number of words written in the emails, particularly the number of words written by the therapist, and changes in fatigue severity. So, we just need to read or write longer emails to get better?
(Perhaps they should have checked to see if there was a correlation between the number of words in the emails starting with 's' and change in fatigue - I find the sound of such words rather soothing...
Or perhaps they could have analysed the number of 'I's (as in 'I am') used by the patients in their emails - as high levels might indicate an unhealthy pre-occupation with oneself....)
But what is this paragraph actually saying @Dolphin? I can't see the whole report.
In the second part of the paragraph they found that the number of words written by the therapist was correlated with change in fatigue but the mean number of words written by the patient was irrelevant. This group was described as 'patients who started treatment' n=44.
In the first part of the paragraph they found the opposite - that the mean number of words written by the patient was correlated with change in fatigue but the mean number of words written by the therapist was irrelevant. But what group was that in? Perhaps those who both started and finished the treatment?
If the results can change 180 degrees with just a tweak of the group studied, it is all even more laughably random.
Of course this whole paper is irrelevant to scientific progress and my question about the group composition is just idle curiosity.
50 were allocated to the intervention group so does were the people who were analysed initially.
As the quote says above, 3 of those never did the therapy bringing the number down to 47.
I'm not sure why it went down to 44.
The results aren't necessarily a full 180° turn. They could be going from borderline significant to just over the P equals 0.05 threshold and vice versa. But it is a little odd all right.
Is it not refreshing for once to see "chronic fatigue" being differentiated from "CFS"?
It's going to be hilarious watching them once a diagnostic test is available. In the blink of an eye, they will abandon the idea that all CFS is the same, and start babbling about subgroups for which CBT is still supposedly relevant. And those subgroups will coincidentally begin where relevance of the diagnostic test ends.
And always will.
Doesn't this study really prove how useless these questionnaires are in unblinded studies?
I'd never heard of ICF until I read this, but after a few searches see it appears to have been around a while. But I can't find it on the NHS sites. Is it recognised by WHO?
Does anyone know of people who have been diagnosed with ICF?
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.