Reviewer 1: Dr Suzanne Broadbent Southern Cross University Lismore NSW Australia
…she writes quite a good review of the trial and makes many important points such as:
GET, This section is very poorly written and as a protocol paper, needs a lot more information.
she then writes a very detailed 2-3 page critque with comments and suggestions for changes
group.bmj.com on July 7, 2016 - Published by
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from
Now let’s look at Reviewer 2’s comments!
Reviewer 2 Dr Lucy Clark – of Queen Mary University – author of articles with Prof. White defending the PACE trial and assisting in other trials, such as GETSET. (independent reviewer?)
In the 1990's Dr Clark completed a both bachelor and masters degrees in Sport and Exercise Sciences, also working in health and fitness during that time. In 1998 she started working as a researcher at
Kings College London on a randomised controlled trial comparing graded exercise with cognitive behaviour therapy for primary care patients with fatigue. In 2005 she completed her PhD in this field and continued to research fatigue in primary care. At this time she also assisted with some research into headache in primary care and took on some lecturing roles. In 2007 she moved to Queen Mary, to undertake a study looking at the cytokine response to exercise in secondary care patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. More recently she has been
managing a trial of guided self-help for patients diagnosed with CFS in secondary care, the emphasis of the guidance being a graded return to exercise and activity. She also continues to work as a personal trainer outside of QMUL.
Here is what Dr Clark wrote in total in general comments section of what she felt about the proposal: 1 short paragraph... - really just one paragraph or am I missing something?
“This study protocol investigating the feasibility of carrying out a RCT of GET for CFS/ME is written clearly and in enough detail for it to be repeated. It includes all the information it should regarding funding and ethics, and the references seem to be relevant to this population and up-to-date. The title and abstract are clear, and it describes an interesting study that, when completed, should add to the literature on GET for CFS/ME.”
…I don’t really have words for this – all I say is compare this to Dr Broadbent’s detailed 2-3 page review?