August 8th, 2018: Understanding and Remembrance Day for Severe ME
Have you heard of our Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Day of Understanding and Remembrance? Please join Jody Smith in observing this day and honoring the 25% of those with ME/CFS who are most severely ill.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

British Association for CFS/ME (BACME) - National Outcomes Database (NOD) 2012

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by cornwall13, Aug 2, 2013.

  1. cornwall13



    Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I was looking at the wesbite above and I came across the National Outcomes Database (NOD) 2012. data report 2012_02.xls from the website

    If you click on tabs at the bottom comparing the NOD vs PACE you can see that the following info:

    These tables show how changes in mean scores at assessment and 12 months later compare with PACE trial results
    (APT = Adaptice Pacing Therapy; CBT = Cognitive Behavioural Therapy; GET = Graded Exercise Therapy; SMC = Standard Medical Care)

    Fatigue (Chalder)
    PACE APT 28.5 23.1 -5.4
    PACE CBT 27.7 20.3 -7.4
    PACE GET 28.2 20.6 -7.6
    PACE SMC 28.3 23.8 -4.5
    NOD 26.3 19.8 -6.6

    Physical function (SF-36)
    PACE APT 37.2 45.9 +8.7
    PACE CBT 39.0 58.2 +19.2
    PACE GET 36.7 57.7 +21.0
    PACE SMC 39.2 50.8 +11.6
    NOD 41.9 46.6 +4.7

    The NOD's data shows that after 12 months on the Chalder Fatigue patients decreased from 26.3 to 19.8 (which is pretty in line with the PACE trial). However, compare that to the SF36 questionnaire and the mean went from 41.9 to 46.6, which doesn't really compare to the PACE trial. Its actually lower than APT and SMC, which I think the PACE trial shows are not cost effective. Bearing in mind that over 4000 patients were were interviewed over 30 different clinical teams.
    Bob, Esther12 and Sean like this.
  2. Firestormm


    Cornwall England
    cornwall13 you boffin you :)

    NODDY had been on my 'things to look at' for a while. But I think the last time I (we) really did was when that unemployment cost paper came out I think last year. You remember the one? Anyway, your post has prompted me to take another look at the changes they have implemented in terms of tightening their measuring criteria etc. which is something I think they had promised they would do and I see from the website they claim now to have done.

    NOD is important as it is the means by which they try and measure the effectiveness of the specialist centre interventions of course and the data does get used as a basis for their research.

    Definitely something I need to look at I think although the data you cite above is well beyond my ability to comment upon :nerd: :D

    Take it easy.
  3. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    The results were quite similar, although not exactly in the same, in this study published this year:
    Firestormm and Valentijn like this.
  4. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    It is difficult to reliably compare the two studies, because the NOD study had no control group and a much larger proportion of patients (about half) were lost to follow-up.
  5. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    I can't believe people are making money from providing those 'services'. It really 't surprise me at all if homeopathy were more effective at improving questionnaire scores for patients.
    Valentijn and Dolphin like this.
  6. Firestormm


    Cornwall England
    Incidentally, this online NHS clinic (you might need to register to view the link above), has really taken off. It's attracted controversy (GET), but the medical queries have certainly kept Dr Shepherd very busy from what he's been saying. Some good questions being asked I noticed.

    Anyway, thought as I hadn't heard from cornwall13 for a while I'd repost the reply from Jessica.

    Reply has been edited adding spaces for improved readability - I hope :)

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page