Phoenix Rising supports the Millions Missing global day of protest
Phoenix Rising is delighted to support the demands being made in the ME/CFS community’s first-ever global day of protest …
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Tribunal was right to order release of PACE data: Prof Jo Edwards

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Simon, Aug 27, 2016.

  1. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,941
    Likes:
    14,670
    Monmouth, UK
    Tribunal was right to order release of chronic fatigue trial data - The Conversation (by Professor Jo Edwards)

    After nearly four months deliberation a tribunal has dismissed an appeal.PDF) made by Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) against a requirement to release data from the PACE trial – a trial that investigated treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome. This is an important step towards the increased transparency we need for balanced analysis of clinical trials where the methodology is questionable.
    ...
    Good science doesn’t need protection
    ...
    The core of the dispute appears to be that the QMUL authors feel they are entitled to protect their study from those who might wish to discredit their interpretation. Hopefully, we are moving towards a consensus that there is no such entitlement. If scientific interpretation is poor it deserves no protection. If it is good it needs none.

    ...From my perspective the importance of this decision is in emphasising that everyone has the right to access to scientific data and to express their opinion. Confidentiality of patient identity is essential but should not be used as a smokescreen...

    read the full article
     
    Valentijn, moosie, TiredSam and 36 others like this.
  2. lansbergen

    lansbergen Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,511
    Likes:
    2,727
    yep
     
    Valentijn, moosie, Justin30 and 13 others like this.
  3. aimossy

    aimossy Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes:
    3,795
    Excellent.
     
    rosie26, Bob, Mary and 3 others like this.
  4. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,530
    Thanks a lot to @Jonathan Edwards ...

    I bet that when you first joined this forum you didn't expect it to lead to all this.
     
    Valentijn, moosie, Justin30 and 11 others like this.
  5. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,812
    Likes:
    34,305
    UK
    :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

    Thank you, @Jonathan Edwards. I agree that

    If scientific interpretation is poor it deserves no protection. If it is good it needs none.

    is great. We should all have it printed on t-shirts!

    Thanks very much for working so hard to help patients. If only the PACE authors hadn't made such hard work necessary.
     
    moosie, Justin30, BruceInOz and 13 others like this.
  6. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,750
    Likes:
    23,211
    A good summary.
     
  7. James_B

    James_B

    Messages:
    19
    Likes:
    2
    Sorry for my bad English but was the suspicion right that patients did not have ME/CFS or was the PACE study right that PACING is good for ME/CFS? :)
     
  8. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,750
    Likes:
    23,211
    The walking distance and physical function scores were that of seriously ill patients.

    I vaguely remember that there were problems with the case definition, so the patient sample was probably even more heterogeneous than studies using the CDC case definition. I don't think this matters much in the end. Early criticism of PACE focused on this since it accepted the claim that some patients improved, but that is in doubt now.

    In my opinion the correct interpretation of what's known about PACE is that no treatment was effective. The positive results are false positives due to methodological problems. Pacing seemed to a little bit better than the other interventions in improving fitness, but that observation is based on a graph for which the data wasn't released.

    Once the data is released we will have a clearer picture.

    Edit: the treatments tested were cognitive behavior therapy (a special form, that aims to cure the patient), graded exercise therapy, treatment as usual by the doctor, and adaptive pacing (which is not really pacing since it includes a therapist and sets targets, whereas real pacing is entirely self managed).
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2016
    James_B likes this.
  9. Mary

    Mary Forum Support Assistant

    Messages:
    3,692
    Likes:
    8,224
    Southern California
    deleder2k likes this.
  10. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Rebel without a biscuit

    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes:
    10,182
    Hi @James_B

    The issues with the PACE trial--despite the name -- are not really about pacing but about whether the use of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) are good treatments for patients with ME.

    If you are interested in knowing more there are many threads. One thread:

    http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...he-pace-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-study.40664/

    discusses some of the issues raised.

    Also, some (or all--not sure) of the principal investigators in the PACE trial had conflicts of interest having done work for insurance companies--a conflict they failed to disclose.
     
    julieduzyoga, aimossy and James_B like this.
  11. msf

    msf Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,318
    Likes:
    4,637
    Prof. Jo Edwards? Did they find a (new) way of crossing Jo Cambridge with Jonathan Edwards?

    Thanks Prof Jo Ed!
     
  12. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,033
    Likes:
    13,096
    Sth Australia

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page