Countrygirl
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,479
- Location
- UK
https://virology.ws/.../trial-by-error-yet-more.../...
Trial By Error: Yet More Stupidity from the Dutch CBT Fan Club
Leave a Comment / By David Tuller / 11 November 2023
By David Tuller, DrPH
*This is a crowdfunding month at UC Berkeley for my Trial by Error project. If you appreciate my work and would like to help support it, here’s the link for this November’s campaign.
As I pointed out last month when I reviewed a ridiculous study of “psychosomatic therapy” for “persistent somatic symptoms,” the Dutch psychologizers can’t seem to stop churning out poor-quality research purporting to support claims that their interventions are effective. Before the psychosomatic therapy study was the one investigating cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for fatigue associated with long Covid, in which the authors declared success but failed to disclose that they had null results for their one objective measure—how far participants moved, as assessed by actigraphy.
Now we have another study of this ilk, this time a meta-analysis of individual patient data from a batch of studies of CBT for ME/CFS: “Does the effect of cognitive behavior therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) vary by patient characteristics?
A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.” The lead and senior authors are the same as for the recent study of CBT for long Covid –Dr Tanja Kuut and Professor Hans Knoop, both from the University of Amsterdam.
The new meta-analysis was published by Psychological Medicine, a journal that is essentially an in-house publication for the stream of shoddy papers emerging from members of the CBT/GET ideological brigades. (The Journal of Psychosomatic Research performs a similar function.) To make it more of an inside job, all eight studies included in the meta-analysis were done by investigators from the same group of researchers that includes Dr Kuut and Professor Knoop.
Given the background of both the authors and the journal, low expectations for this meta-analysis would be warranted. And such low expectations are rewarded. The authors seem to think that by slicing and dicing old data in new ways they will come up with refurbished findings that bolster their case. But this notion is a delusion.
Trial By Error: Yet More Stupidity from the Dutch CBT Fan Club
Leave a Comment / By David Tuller / 11 November 2023
By David Tuller, DrPH
*This is a crowdfunding month at UC Berkeley for my Trial by Error project. If you appreciate my work and would like to help support it, here’s the link for this November’s campaign.
As I pointed out last month when I reviewed a ridiculous study of “psychosomatic therapy” for “persistent somatic symptoms,” the Dutch psychologizers can’t seem to stop churning out poor-quality research purporting to support claims that their interventions are effective. Before the psychosomatic therapy study was the one investigating cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for fatigue associated with long Covid, in which the authors declared success but failed to disclose that they had null results for their one objective measure—how far participants moved, as assessed by actigraphy.
Now we have another study of this ilk, this time a meta-analysis of individual patient data from a batch of studies of CBT for ME/CFS: “Does the effect of cognitive behavior therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) vary by patient characteristics?
A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.” The lead and senior authors are the same as for the recent study of CBT for long Covid –Dr Tanja Kuut and Professor Hans Knoop, both from the University of Amsterdam.
The new meta-analysis was published by Psychological Medicine, a journal that is essentially an in-house publication for the stream of shoddy papers emerging from members of the CBT/GET ideological brigades. (The Journal of Psychosomatic Research performs a similar function.) To make it more of an inside job, all eight studies included in the meta-analysis were done by investigators from the same group of researchers that includes Dr Kuut and Professor Knoop.
Given the background of both the authors and the journal, low expectations for this meta-analysis would be warranted. And such low expectations are rewarded. The authors seem to think that by slicing and dicing old data in new ways they will come up with refurbished findings that bolster their case. But this notion is a delusion.
