Professor & patients' paper on the solvable biological challenge of ME/CFS: reader-friendly version
Simon McGrath provides a patient-friendly version of a peer-reviewed paper which highlights some of the most promising biomedical research on ME/CFS ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

The efficacy of guided self-instruction for patients with idiopathic chronic fatigue: A RCT

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Tom Kindlon, Feb 28, 2017.

  1. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes:
    8,116
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26950098

     
  2. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes:
    8,116
    I just posted a comment on this on PubMed Commons:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26950098#cm26950098_62209

    Tom Kindlon 2017 Feb 28 3:44 p.m. (just added)

     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
    mango, Valentijn, Mark and 19 others like this.
  3. Grigor

    Grigor Senior Member

    Messages:
    387
    Likes:
    739
    Amsterdam
  4. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,583
    Likes:
    21,731
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  5. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes:
    8,116
     
  6. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,574
    Likes:
    27,648
     
  7. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,574
    Likes:
    27,648
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  8. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,574
    Likes:
    27,648
    So they didn't use the threshold of 60+ on the SF 36 physical functioning subscale used in the PACE trial.
     
    Hutan and Daisymay like this.
  9. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,574
    Likes:
    27,648
     
  10. Hutan

    Hutan Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes:
    5,606
    New Zealand
    :rofl::rofl: and Huh?

    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.
     
    Woolie, Invisible Woman and slysaint like this.
  11. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,574
    Likes:
    27,648
    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.
     
    Hutan likes this.
  12. Skippa

    Skippa Senior Member

    Messages:
    802
    Likes:
    2,671
    Is it not refreshing for once to see "chronic fatigue" being differentiated from "CFS"?
     
  13. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,583
    Likes:
    21,731
    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. ;)
     
    Diwi9, Valentijn, Webdog and 4 others like this.
  14. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,198
    Likes:
    17,442
    And always will. :whistle:
     
  15. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Hibernating

    Messages:
    4,578
    Likes:
    12,179
    South Australia
    Doesn't this study really prove how useless these questionnaires are in unblinded studies? ;)
     
    Webdog and Invisible Woman like this.
  16. slysaint

    slysaint Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,017
    Likes:
    10,526
    W. Sussex UK
    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?
     
    Webdog likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page