PACE-gate ……. More wrongdoings? – PARTICIPANT NUMBERS seemingly just DON’T ADD UP

[lilpink]

Similar rounding errors could be in the Edinburgh report, so although a little suspicious I don't think this a smoking gun per se. It's more likely just ascribing actual numbers to fuzzy "around" numbers.

Bear in mind I have all the reported figures bar Kings. They will be published at a later date.

 

[lilpink]

Did Peter White just do a really poor job of patient recruitment - which would be a bit surprising given that he was the PI - or was there something else going on?

Perhaps Peter White was just too preoccupied at the time working with Esther Crawley on this NOD paper https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/qjmed/hct061 ?

 

[lilpink]

It's more likely just ascribing actual numbers to fuzzy "around" numbers.

For one of the centres the 'fuzzy' number returned was significantly less than 135 and was apparently the number of patients recruited to the Trial, obtained from the central R&D database. If anything that would be an over-estimate, not an under-estimate, of the number who finally made it into the Trial data.

 

[Malcx]

Bear in mind I have all the reported figures bar Kings. They will be published at a later date.

It'll be good to see all those other figures so we know what we should expect from Kings. Any ETA on when they'll be published?

 

[lilpink]

Hi, might have found the table you are meaning with the number of trial participants to centres. If you click the link ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022399914001883 ) then go to the top of Table B. It's from the adverse events paper. If you add up the participants experiencing less than 4 and more than 4 adverse events then that should give you how many participants were at each centre. Kx

Oh my! Thank you for this. Apologies for being enigmatic but I think this information has cracked the code on this. The numbers aren't 'fuzzy' or 'woolly' or any other jumper-related euphemism. What this information does is make an original hypothesis look increasingly like a reality.

 

[lilpink]

It'll be good to see all those other figures so we know what we should expect from Kings. Any ETA on when they'll be published?

Given the breakthrough courtesy of @kirstenthomson2000 it might be sooner rather than later.

 

[Malcx]

Because I like playing devil's advocate and trying to spot flaws...

>>If you add up the participants experiencing less than 4 and
>>more than 4 adverse events then that should give you how
>>many participants were at each centre.

Does that include those with "exactly 4" ?

 

[Malcx]

To answer my own comment yes it's "less than or equal to 4"

 

[A.B.]

A little suspicious don’t you think?

Not necessarily. It says that the Frenchay cohort was "around 70". That means it could have been 73 which would make the number align perfectly.

135 + 135 + 135 + 100 + 73 + 63 = 641

There is nothing suspicious about several centers enrolling all 135 patients. The authors probably set a maximum to avoid large imbalances and it's plausible that some centers are getting patients much faster.

Also if you have about 160 patients per treatment arm, making up data for a few won't have any major effects on the outcomes. It might make the difference between almost statistically significant and statistically significant, but PACE has much bigger problems than that. Plus they don't need to make up data when they can make up bizarre definitions of recovery.

 

[lilpink]

Not necessarily. It says that the Frenchay cohort was "around 70". That means it could have been 73 which would make the number align perfectly.

135 + 135 + 135 + 100 + 73 + 63 = 641

There is nothing suspicious about several centers enrolling all 135 patients. The authors probably set a maximum to avoid large imbalances and it's plausible that some centers are getting patients much faster.

Also if you have about 160 patients per treatment arm, making up data for a few won't have any major effects on the outcomes. It might make the difference between almost statistically significant and statistically significant, but PACE has much bigger problems than that. Plus they don't need to make up data when they can make up bizarre definitions of recovery.

Look at table B

 

[Deepwater]

I've got a dim memory of them having opened a couple of new trial centres at a late stage as they were having difficulty scraping together the required number of participants, but I'm afraid I can't recall the details and I could be wrong.

 

[thegodofpleasure]

Oh my! Thank you for this. Apologies for being enigmatic but I think this information has cracked the code on this. The numbers aren't 'fuzzy' or 'woolly' or any other jumper-related euphemism. What this information does is make an original hypothesis look increasingly like a reality.

Good sleuthing you two. I'm impressed.

The problem with lying (especially when you piss off so many intelligent people) is that your lies don't add up and you eventually get found out.

 

[A.B.]

Look at table B

I see tables 1 to 6 in the Lancet PACE paper. Which one do you mean, and which part of it is relevant to my post?

 

[kirstenthomson2000]

I see tables 1 to 6 in the Lancet PACE paper. Which one do you mean, and which part of it is relevant to my post?

Hi, it's in the appendix (scroll to the bottom). I don't know if it's helpful but i do like pretending to be a detective from my bed! Kx

 

[Malcx]

I see tables 1 to 6 in the Lancet PACE paper. Which one do you mean, and which part of it is relevant to my post?

Table B is near the end: Direct link
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022399914001883#t0035


Center A has 86 ≤ 4 and 24 >4 => 110 total participants
B : 74 : 34 = 108
C : 78 : 57 = 135
D : 38 : 75 = 113
E : 32 : 79 = 111
F : 5 : 58 = 63

Total 640 (off by 1 from the 641)

F is probably Frenchay with "around 70"

Any of 4 of them could potentially be Edinburgh with "about 100".

This also tallies with the 63 min and 135 max we're expecting.

 

[A.B.]

Total 640 (off by 1 from the 641)

Thanks.

There are 6 centers instead of 5 like I thought. The "Frenchay n=73" explanation is therefore wrong.

Data for one participant is missing. I'm not convinced that a off by one error is an indication of wrongdoing though.

There was one participant that withdrew consent late if I remember right and that might be the source of this error.

 

[lilpink]

Table B is near the end: Direct link
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022399914001883#t0035


Center A has 86 ≤ 4 and 24 >4 => 110 total participants
B : 74 : 34 = 108
C : 78 : 57 = 135
D : 38 : 75 = 113
E : 32 : 79 = 111
F : 5 : 58 = 63

Total 640 (off by 1 from the 641)

F is probably Frenchay with "around 70"

Any of 4 of them could potentially be Edinburgh with "about 100".

This also tallies with the 63 min and 135 max we're expecting.

 

[Stewart]

Data for one participant is missing. I'm not convinced that a off by one error is an indication of wrongdoing though.

I think Lilpink is intimating that the data about participant numbers that she has obtained directly from the centres through FoI requests does not tally with these figures.

Given the breakthrough courtesy of @kirstenthomson2000 it might be sooner rather than later.

Much as I'm intrigued to hear the full details of what you've uncovered, I'd urge you to take your time and build a watertight case - even if that means leaving the rest of us in the dark for the foreseeable future. It sounds like it could be a very big deal and worth investigating comprehensively before going public...

Impressive sleuthing! Keep going...

 

[lilpink]

There was one participant that withdrew consent late if I remember right and that might be the source of this error.

Nope ...the data shouldn't lie. Bear in mind this is all based on data either they have presented in published papers or Trusts have delivered courtesy of FOIA requests. Trust me... there isn't a simple answer to this which doesn't make them look dodgy in one way or another.

 

[lilpink]

Much as I'm intrigued to hear the full details of what you've uncovered, I'd urge you to take your time and build a watertight case - even if that means leaving the rest of us in the dark for the forseeable future. It sounds like it could be a very big deal and worth investigating comprehensively before going public...

Impressive sleuthing! Keep going...

Thanks... I think you're right. Hopefully those to whom this information has been presented will agree and work on this too.