Dr David Tuller: Trial By Error: Journal Corrects “Highlights” Section of Professor White’s GETSET Follow-Up Paper

[Countrygirl]

https://www.virology.ws/2021/06/30/...qv2KXp5itFD4_APW1G76p5B4VCvqC0A0BS_f5TcU5lKp8

Trial By Error: Journal Corrects “Highlights” Section of Professor White’s GETSET Follow-Up Paper

30 June 2021 by David Tuller Leave a Comment

By David Tuller, DrPH

I have pressed the Journal of Psychosomatic Research to correct a recent paper—”Guided graded exercise self-help for chronic fatigue syndrome: Long term follow up and cost-effectiveness following the GETSET trial.” The senior author is Professor Peter White. Now the journal has published a revised “Highlights” section of the paper that accurately presents the study’s null results for the intervention rather than claiming success on an illegitimate basis. But the fact that this laudable change has been made is not indicated.
The “Highlights” section lists four main points taken from the study. It appears in the web version on the ScienceDirect platform but not in the pdf file, so I guess its actual status as an integral part of the paper is ambiguous. Should changes made to “Highlights” be noted as corrections, as with other sections? I would say yes. But others might regard it more as adjunct material that can be altered without notice, the way news headlines often are. (Perhaps this matter has already been adjudicated by the people who adjudicate these things, or perhaps it hasn’t arisen much before.)
Unfortunately, the abstract’s conclusion remains the same, and it is still misleading. The Journal of Psychosomatic Research should take the next step and correct this section as well.............

 

[nerd]

Corrigendum to "Guided graded exercise self-help for chronic fatigue syndrome: Long term follow up and cost-effectiveness following the GETSET trial" [Journal of Psychosomatic Research 146 (2021) 110484]

doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110542

The authors regret that they did not submit a revised highlights statement, when resubmitting their paper, in the light of revisions made to the final article. The revised highlights include a new statement, which reads: “There were no differences between interventions in primary outcomes at long-term follow up”. This is a substitute for: “Guided graded exercise self-help (GES) may lead to sustained improvement in fatigue.” The authors also made a minor correction to another highlight, which now reads: “The study showed that GES probably was cost-effective”.

The revised highlights are as follows:

• There were no differences between interventions in primary outcomes at long-term follow up.
• There was no evidence of greater harm after GES compared to specialist medical care at long-term follow-up.
• The study showed that GES probably was cost-effective.
• Most patients remained unwell at follow up; more effective treatments are required.

The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.