Re-analysis of PACE trial as evidence based medicine tool?

[Janice Hargreaves]

I feel that the re-analysis of the PACE trial by so many well placed experts is clear evidence that the BPS model is incorrect.
How can we use it as a tool which benefits our cause?
How can we use that to prevent the NHS, NICE and MRC pouring any more money into investigating any benefits of CBT and/or GET in adults or children with ME/CFS?
In other words get those in BPS school out of research into ME/CFS.

I understand that until there is a biomarker or chemical signature for ME/CFS this is difficult.

The ME Association has launched an Xmas appeal to raise funds to find out if the Naviaux and Hanson et al metabolomics study can be replicated in the UK using the ME/CFSBIobank samples.
See http://www.meassociation.org.uk/201...hristmas-appeal-starts-today-9-november-2016/ for appeal for any support anyone can give.

How can we focus?

 

[trishrhymes]

@Tom Kindlon has said on Twitter yesterday that there is a peer reviewed re-analysis of the PACE data in the pipeline and that he can't discuss it further as it's embargoed until publication. I gather this may take a month or more. We obviously need to respect this and not ask for more details or speculate about it.

I think once that's out in the open we will have stronger ammunition for both the media and NICE etc.

 

[Janice Hargreaves]

That is such a relief to hear. Thank you for letting me know.
Hopefully the MEA Xmas fundraising for metabolomics will go well and so another lovely positive for everyone to enjoy.

 

[Tom Kindlon]

@Tom Kindlon has said on Twitter yesterday that there is a peer reviewed re-analysis of the PACE data in the pipeline and that he can't discuss it further as it's embargoed until publication. I gather this may take a month or more. We obviously need to respect this and not ask for more details or speculate about it.

Here are the tweets with the exact wording:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796419455240650752

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796419941431963648

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796422514805272576

I will of course mention the other authors when it gets published especially as I'm not the lead or corresponding author i.e. somebody else did the biggest share of the work.

 

[trishrhymes]

Thanks Tom, I haven't yet learned how to post tweets directly in here. Better to see the real thing! Well done to you and your co-authors. Can't wait!

 

[AndyPR]

Thanks Tom, I haven't yet learned how to post tweets directly in here. Better to see the real thing! Well done to you and your co-authors. Can't wait!

To post tweets. From a tweet you want to post, click on the 'three dots' button. This should give you a menu like this

Select 'Copy link to Tweet' which should then give you this

Copy the link and simply paste the link into a post here, the forum software will then do the rest.

 

[trishrhymes]

Thanks Andy, I'll try to remember!

 

[Daisymay]

Brilliant! I look forward to reading it. I hope it's out before Christmas, that would be some present for the ME community.

Hmmm.......it will be interesting to see how the authors, Lancet and SMC react.

If there is a peer reviewed critique of a paper that must surely put real pressure on the journal publishing the original paper to take action? Is there a set protocol for such things?

Or do journals just tend to dismiss such critiques and carry on as usual? I wouldn't be surprised.....