JohntheJack
Senior Member
- Messages
- 198
- Location
- Swansea, UK
Thanks for you hjelp. I really appreciate it.
We are trying to get an article in a journal in Norway and are checking out a lot of things.
This article with comments are really informative
From this https://theconversation.com/researc...rogram-help-youths-with-chronic-fatigue-84769
Here, a comment from Dan Clarke says
That there was no significant difference between groups for their original primary outcome? That they appear to have failed to release results for school attendance figures verified by the participants school, instead relying on self-reported attendance which could be more prone to problems with biased reporting? That data on school attendance was missing for a third of the LP group at 12 months?
The fact that data on school attendance was missing for a third of the LP group at 12 months, is it a fact? Does anyone knows where that statement comes from? Is it reliable and can be used?
This is the paper.
http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2017/09/21/archdischild-2017-313375
The original primary outcome was school attendance. Check out Table 3 'secondary outcomes': 2.6 (SMC) 3.2 (SMC + LP) at 6 months. Then look at school attendance N for 12 months for SMC+LP is 34 (51 in group at start of trial).