• 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, 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.

PACE trial re-analysis paper (Wilshire et al) is now open access - thanks to MEA!

C

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239
The PACE trial re-analysis paper (Wilshire et al) is now Open Access - thanks to the MEA!

Full paper:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2017.1259724

Acknowledgements
This paper represents a collaborative effort between psychology researchers and patients. In addition to those named as authors, several others also contributed important ideas, suggestions and information. This paper could not have been written without their help. We also wish to thank Keith Laws for his helpful comments, and David Tuller and Sam Carter for drawing our attention to some of the issues noted in this paper.

Open Access publication has been made possible thanks to funding from The ME Association Medical Education Programme.


Dr Charles Shepherd
Hon Medical Adviser, MEA
 
Jonathan Edwards

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
charles shepherd said:
The PACE trial re-analysis paper (Wilshire et al) is now Open Access - thanks to the MEA!
Click to expand...

It is very pleasing to see both MEA and Taylor and Francis oiling wheels. Taylor and Francis (publishers) and the editorial office of Fatigue were very helpful with the review we published last year. They asked me to give a small commentary on using their open access, because we had had one of the highest numbers of hits online. That also seemed to go down well. I think there is a certain amount of buzz around patients collaborating with researchers on solid scientific issues. It is a million miles away from patronising patient advisory group set ups. This is doing things how they ought to be done and the academic community might do well to wake up to it.
 
U

UKmum

Messages
87
Great work. Really makes it clear what the issues are- I feel I finally understand quite how bad the trial was- shocking in fact. I will be asking my sons therapist what she thinks about it at our next meeting to discuss his planned activity increases! Thank you to all who created it.
 
K

keenly

Senior Member
Messages
814
Location
UK
charles shepherd said:
The PACE trial re-analysis paper (Wilshire et al) is now Open Access - thanks to the MEA!

Full paper:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2017.1259724

Acknowledgements
This paper represents a collaborative effort between psychology researchers and patients. In addition to those named as authors, several others also contributed important ideas, suggestions and information. This paper could not have been written without their help. We also wish to thank Keith Laws for his helpful comments, and David Tuller and Sam Carter for drawing our attention to some of the issues noted in this paper.

Open Access publication has been made possible thanks to funding from The ME Association Medical Education Programme.


Dr Charles Shepherd
Hon Medical Adviser, MEA
Click to expand...

Good stuff Dr Charles.
 
J

JohnM

Senior Member
Messages
117
Location
West Yorkshire
charles shepherd said:
Now that we have paid for open access to this very important paper we will be sending a copy to Professor Mark Baker at NICE!
Click to expand...

Many thanks!

In the expectation that the serious flaws with the PACE trial, as highlighted in this paper, will not filter down to the NHS 'coal face' for some time, I will make sure to drop off a copy with the Practice Manager at my local GP surgery, and my local MP. Likewise, I will keep a copies for myself when attending hospital appointments ... all too often do I hear, "You should try CBT and GET ..", or "CBT and GET is all we can offer you ..", and the like.

They may well choose not to accept this paper and/or decide not to read the paper and/or throw it in a bin, but they'll not be able to deny that they were not given the opportunity to understand how the BPS model of illness and their 'treatments' of choice, are based on flawed 'science'. As stated in the paper -

CONCLUSIONS: The claim that patients can recover as a result of CBT and GET is not justified by the data, and is highly misleading to clinicians and patients considering these treatments.

Jonathan Edwards said:
..
I think there is a certain amount of buzz around patients collaborating with researchers on solid scientific issues. It is a million miles away from patronising patient advisory group set ups. This is doing things how they ought to be done and the academic community might do well to wake up to it.
Click to expand...

I sure hope the academic community do wake up, and sooner rather than later. It does seem that it is full steam ahead for the BPS adherents - given how they are seeking to control the narrative on the treatment of MUS. They need derailing before they do any more damage to far too many patients.

UKmum said:
Great work. Really makes it clear what the issues are- I feel I finally understand quite how bad the trial was- shocking in fact. I will be asking my sons therapist what she thinks about it at our next meeting to discuss his planned activity increases! Thank you to all who created it.
Click to expand...

I can only echo .. many thanks to all involved.

Wishing you all improved health and happiness.
 
D

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
Some things never change. Colin Barton posted this on the ME Association Facebook page


Colin Barton - Do more people recover from chronic fatigue syndrome with cognitive behaviour therapy or graded exercise therapy than with other treatments?

M. Sharpe, T. Chalder, A. L. Johnson, K. A. Goldsmith & P. D. White Received 25 Jan 2017 Accepted 26 Jan 2017 Published online: 15 Feb 2017

ABSTRACT

Background: Wilshire et al. suggest that we have overestimated the number of patients that recover from chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) after receiving a course of either cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) or graded exercise therapy (GET), as reported in a secondary analysis of outcome data from the Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behavior therapy; a randomized Evaluation (PACE) trial. We provide counter-arguments to this view.

Purpose: To provide an alternative view to that offered by Wilshire et al.

http://sci-hub.cc/10.1080/21641846.2017.1288629
Click to expand...
 
U

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Dolphin said:
Some things never change. Colin Barton posted this on the ME Association Facebook page
Click to expand...

White's response to the recovery reanalysis paper is worth reading as the arguments and logic are so weak I don't see how anyone who has put the slightest thought into the issues would be impressed. In fact I think it would convince many that the trial is really poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.