• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

ABC radio - Comparison of treatments for CFS - PACE trial

Messages
13,774
That's interesting, though obviously it's difficult to assess psychological problems any other way than subjectively (as opposed to CFS where objective measures are feasible and desirable). Do you have any links to these questionnaire bias problems of not measuring the relevant outcome? ta.

I can't remember any specific references I'm afraid.

I see it as part of the general human problem of effectively measuring outcomes. The more important results of a particular measure are, the more likely is that this measure will be successfully gamed. If school test results are used to set teachers pay/school funding, then it's more likely that childrens education will be distorted in a way that leads to higher test scores, but problems in other areas. (I was reading a recent piece on Washington's school systems problems with this).

If those designing a CBT programme for depression know the sorts of questions that will be asked to asses the impact of their treamtnet, then they will inevitably focus their efforts upon changing the answers to these questions... but this can undermine the ability of these questionnaires to accurately measure what it is we think is truly important.

Sorry not to have any links to solid evidence or research. When I next stumble upon some I'll try to remember to post it here.
 

biophile

Places I'd rather be.
Messages
8,977
Discrepancies and disingenuousness sitting in a tree, P A C I N G.

I sent an email (not a letter submitted for publication) to Horton which demonstrates factual errors in the Lancet regarding normative data and physical function scores, and then asks him to consider the possibility that if such basic factual errors went undetected despite "endless rounds of peer review" then perhaps the ME/CFS community have been making other important points which have also gone undetected by the Lancet. Originally I was working on that email for Swan but I couldn't find Swan's email address and then I realised the same argument would be better directed towards Horton.

It has been about 6 weeks, and Horton never replied, not that I'm surprised, I figured there would be a 50/50 chance. Something else also came to mind from the transcript from the ABC broadcast:

Richard Horton: Well what we're doing right now is waiting for the formal response from the authors to this 43 page attack on their integrity and the study and the request for a retraction. We plan to publish their response to that attack, we will invite the critics to submit versions of their criticisms for publication and we will try as best as we can to conduct a reasonable scientific debate about this paper. This will be a test I think of this particular section of the patient community to engage in a proper scientific discussion.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2011/3192571.htm

I take it this never happened, Hoopers "attack" and the "response to the attack" were never published in The Lancet? The "authors' reply" to the other letters seemed like more spin as well: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60651-X/fulltext - A while ago Angela Kennedy tried to find a single word to summarise the PACE trial, and arrived at "discrepancies". Here's another word to describe the surrounding press releases and the authors' various replies to criticisms, "disingenuous", defined in my dictionary as "not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness".
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
I sent an email (not a letter submitted for publication) to Horton which demonstrates factual errors in the Lancet regarding normative data and physical function scores, and then asks him to consider the possibility that if such basic factual errors went undetected despite "endless rounds of peer review" then perhaps the ME/CFS community have been making other important points which have also gone undetected by the Lancet. Originally I was working on that email for Swan but I couldn't find Swan's email address and then I realised the same argument would be better directed towards Horton.
It has been about 6 weeks, and Horton never replied, not that I'm surprised, I figured there would be a 50/50 chance.
Well done for trying anyway.
 

Snow Leopard

Hibernating
Messages
5,902
Location
South Australia
A while ago Angela Kennedy tried to find a single word to summarise the PACE trial, and arrived at "discrepancies". Here's another word to describe the surrounding press releases and the authors' various replies to criticisms, "disingenuous", defined in my dictionary as "not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness".

What is the word for bait-and-switch?
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Hi, sending emails or whatever to an ABC talk host will not achieve much, no matter the argument. The ABC does however have a formal complaint procedure. Has anyone looked into that? Bye, Alex
 

biophile

Places I'd rather be.
Messages
8,977
What is the word for bait-and-switch?

The old "switcharoo"? :)

Hi, sending emails or whatever to an ABC talk host will not achieve much, no matter the argument. The ABC does however have a formal complaint procedure. Has anyone looked into that? Bye, Alex

I agree that emailing Swan would have been a waste. But the formal complaint procedure would probably be almost as futile. It would be funny to watch Swan getting grilled on ABC Media Watch though.