Dr C. Wilshire:The problem of bias in behavioural intervention studies: Lessons from the PACE trial.

[Esther12]

Another good paper - once again, thanks to Wilshire.

Although to be honest, I think I'm reaching overload on PACE info and I'm not sure if I'm taking much in anymore. (Maybe it's just that I'm about to go to sleep).

Our recent reanalysis of the PACE trial data on
rates of recovery demonstrates just how powerful a
data sharing approach can be. We were able to
demonstrate that apparently minor, late changes to
the definition of recovery impacted very
substantially on the observed rates of recovery and
on their final conclusions about the effectiveness of
the different treatments (Wilshire et al., 2016).
When we defined recovery according to the
original protocol, we found that recovery rates
were consistently low and not reliably different
across treatment groups. The investigators appear
to have been entirely unaware of the extent of this
problem.

I wouldn't want to imply this was any sort of deliberate attempt to mock the PACE team, but that got a laugh from me.

 

[alex3619]

"The best evidence against CBT/GET is the PACE trial"

I have called it the Rosetta Stone of all that is wrong with psychogenic psychiatry.

 

[Barry53]

@Esther12 - yes, nicely worded ... "The investigators appear to have been entirely unaware of the extent of this
problem."

 

[user9876]

I wouldn't want to imply this was any sort of deliberate attempt to mock the PACE team, but that got a laugh from me.

I read it as allowing them a get out in terms of deliberately misleading patents although if they use it it reflects on their competence (in failing to explore the effect of changes).