(Apologies if this page was discussed before)
My attention was recently drawn to the following page:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/...onditions/chronic-fatigue-syndrome/treatment/
It was updated in April 2011. It uses the language of the PACE Trial to make claims.
I'm a bit busy at the moment to write too much but I'm sure others can analyse it more.
The interesting thing of course is that they were one of the funders of the PACE Trial. And the definition of "normal" (among other things) was changed in the published paper compared to the protocol. Could their preferences have influenced the authors? Could the authors have known what their preferences might be? Of course, the preferences of insurance companies might be similar.
My attention was recently drawn to the following page:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/...onditions/chronic-fatigue-syndrome/treatment/
It was updated in April 2011. It uses the language of the PACE Trial to make claims.
I'm a bit busy at the moment to write too much but I'm sure others can analyse it more.
The interesting thing of course is that they were one of the funders of the PACE Trial. And the definition of "normal" (among other things) was changed in the published paper compared to the protocol. Could their preferences have influenced the authors? Could the authors have known what their preferences might be? Of course, the preferences of insurance companies might be similar.