Dr David Tuller: Yet Another Meta-Analysis Purporting to Prove that CBT Is Effective

[Countrygirl]

https://virology.ws/2024/01/30/tria...8SDAJZU0MbtUtfIDynhvZX9iVoLEfwBeWiX7LE-RV2N_w​

​

Trial By Error: Yet Another Meta-Analysis Purporting to Prove that CBT Is Effective​

Leave a Comment / By David Tuller / 30 January 2024

By David Tuller, DrPH

I just wrote about how PACE was favorably cited in an article in Nature Reviews Cardiology. Last month, that piece of crap was also included as part of yet another meta-analysis that mushed together the findings from a load of bad papers and concluded that, collectively, they prove something or other. This new paper—“Efficacy and Acceptance of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Adults with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Meta‐analysis”–was published by the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine and written by investigators from the clinical psychology department at the University of Wuppertal in Wuppertal, Germany.
Was the situation really calling out for yet another major review of trials of psycho-behavioral treatments for what the investigators insist on calling CFS? According to this crew, yes.

The strategy here appears to consist of throwing review after review at the issue, with each new iteration making claims that CBT and/or GET are effective, and arguing soberly that these new findings add further weight to the body of evidence—without pointing out that every review includes some grouping of the same universe of stupid and inadequate studies. When you’re a kid, you learn pretty quickly that if you add a pile of mud to another pile of mud, you just get a bigger mud pile. I guess some people skip that lesson.
In this case, the investigators accept without question the validity of findings from unblinded studies relying on subjective outcomes—the standard design for research in this domain. Unfortunately, this study design is a recipe for generating unknown amounts of bias. Of course, combining biased studies with other biased studies does nothing to eliminate the bias. For unexplained reasons, the meta-analysis ignored null or clinically insignificant results from objective measures included in the body of research—such as, in the PACE trial, the six-minute walking test, step-test for fitness, employment status, and social welfare status. Overlooking or ignoring outright objective outcomes that contradict subjective ones is unacceptable in scientific reporting.....................

 

[linusbert]

at this point i must say, they do want it to be that CBT/GET is effective. that doesnt look like bias, more like manipulation and corruption and seeding doubt.
its so obvious that cfs folks get worse under this, you just have to look at any cfs patient do these and conclude this therapy is not helping, it even makes things worse.
actually the diagnostics criteria for cfs in itself makes GET not work. if it would, it wouldnt fit the definition of cfs (which is a syndrome and no disease... so the criteria for the syndrome isnt met)

who is funding these? why do they want it? who benefits from this? why do they continue to hurt sick people?
these are usually tactics used by big corporations to sell their bad products longer... but which rich powerful entity has interest in cfs folks not getting treated adequately?

 

[greyheron]

Sure, people with CFS benefit from CBT.......but that's because everyone benefits from CBT. Its like saying "People with CFS will benefit from eating food. Try eating food as a treatment! It will do wonders!". I feel that when people push CBT they are ignoring the actual lived experience of people with CFS and assuming that all of our symptoms are just in our head.