"Statistics and ME" by Malcolm Hooper (A critique of the PACE Trial)

[Bob]

I thought it would be helpful to post this info in a new thread...


Here's a new critique of the PACE Trial, "Statistics and ME" by Prof Malcolm Hooper, which highlights and explains a few of the statistical flaws in the published Lancet paper...

It also includes some interesting background info about how Hooper's critique was rejected for publication in the magazine of the Royal Statistical Society, Significance.

It's quite dense reading, but I think it throws some devastating punches, esp re the 'normal range', use of the term 'moderate improvements', and the 'six minute walking distance test' results.

It's published on Invest in ME's website...

Webpage:
http://www.investinme.org/Article435 Statistics and ME.htm?forumid=331851

PDF version:
http://www.investinme.org/Documents/PACE Trial/Statistics and ME.pdf

 

[Bob]

And here's another recently published critique of the PACE Trial (this info was posted on another thread, courtesy of Dolphin):

"Methodological Inconsistencies in the PACE trial for ME/CFS" by Tate Mitchell

http://www.mediafire.com/file/58xlwu12afj903x/PACE trial critique Dec. 02, 2011.docx

Or, if that link doesn't work, see a plain text version (no graphs) at:
https://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1112a&L=co-cure&T=0&P=1152

 

[Enid]

These are very interesting - thanks for good finds Bob.

 

[wdb]

Thanks Bob,
I thought Hoopers article was excellent, it's great to see him writing in a more concise manner but still really hitting home all the important points.

It's terrible that they gave no explanation for it being turned down I really hope that they are pushed to provide some sort of reasoning or justification.

I don't know anything about the journal but wonder if it was because was not purely about statistical analysis or because Hooper clearly showed his own bias with phrases like The PACE Trial is a travesty of science and a tragedy for patients with ME. Don't get me wrong I absolutely agree with everything he says but in this instance it may have served him better to have kept to demonstrable facts.

 

[biophile]

wdb wrote: I don't know anything about the journal but wonder if it was because was not purely about statistical analysis or because Hooper clearly showed his own bias with phrases like "The PACE Trial is a travesty of science and a tragedy for patients with ME." Don't get me wrong I absolutely agree with everything he says but in this instance it may have served him better to have kept to demonstrable facts.

Good point, but the editor could have just asked for that sentence to be removed, rather than rejecting the entire document without explanation. Also, in the invitation the editor actually said, "What you describe as the tragedy for patients is our main concern." In other words, the editor seemed to ask for it, and got what was asked, and apparently didn't like it or was told by someone else to reject it. I appreciate Hooper's efforts for trying, unlike CFS researchers in general who seem too busy or too uninterested or too gutless to adequately respond to the PACE Trial.

 

[Battery Muncher]

Thank you, Bob, for flagging this excellent article up. Disappointing that it was rejected, but it's good work by Professor Hooper nonetheless. I suspect they never had any real intention of publishing it.

I also agree with biophile that Profesor Hooper's efforts are exemplary. It's good to have someone like him, who has the courage to stand "toe-to-toe" with the likes of Wessely, and produce intellectually honest and rigourous criticisms of his work. Many others have not.