Simon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,789
- Location
- Monmouth, UK
Hardly 'latest research' as over five years late:
http://www.wolfson.qmul.ac.uk/current-projects/pace-trial#news
These show CBT/GET had more improvers than SMC, but only 20% for CBT and 21% for GET, vs 10% for SMC.
I think they'd said in the protocol they expected CBT/GET to do 5-6x better than SMC, not c 2x. So the vast majority of patients did not improve in this analysis according to the protocol (most did in the 2011 Lancet paper where they had replaced the protocol analysis with a new one).
The other main objections raised by patients were not addressed by this new analysis:
1. Recovery criteria had been dramatically weakened from those included in the protocol (and, related, new post hoc normal range were introduced that overlapped with trial entry). It's not clear why they authors didn't provide this protocol analysis too.
2. Self-reported gains were not backed up by objective ones in a non-blinded trial with no appropriate control group (just a bit of a methodological issue, that one)
http://www.wolfson.qmul.ac.uk/current-projects/pace-trial#news
These show CBT/GET had more improvers than SMC, but only 20% for CBT and 21% for GET, vs 10% for SMC.
I think they'd said in the protocol they expected CBT/GET to do 5-6x better than SMC, not c 2x. So the vast majority of patients did not improve in this analysis according to the protocol (most did in the 2011 Lancet paper where they had replaced the protocol analysis with a new one).
The other main objections raised by patients were not addressed by this new analysis:
1. Recovery criteria had been dramatically weakened from those included in the protocol (and, related, new post hoc normal range were introduced that overlapped with trial entry). It's not clear why they authors didn't provide this protocol analysis too.
2. Self-reported gains were not backed up by objective ones in a non-blinded trial with no appropriate control group (just a bit of a methodological issue, that one)
Last edited: