If anyone wants to send in a reply to this, it'd be appreciated.
It was included in a free newspaper for Irish doctors.
Last year, following publishing a piece on the Santhouse et al. editorial in the British Medical Journal, they published not one but five letters over a series of weeks (John Greensmith, Tom Kindlon, Gerwyn Morris, Orla N Chomhra & Vance Spence (only two with Irish addresses) - that was most of the people who wrote in, as I recall.
They may be glad to fill up space in their newspaper.
People can also put comments online but letters would be preferred. You can always post your letter as a comment if you prefer.
If you sent in a letter to the Lancet, you could get a chance to re-use it (ordinary newspapers might find it too technical). Probably best to not put the references underneath - just put the name of the first author + et al. + year in brackets e.g. (White et al., 2011) to refer to Lancet paper. If you want me to look at it, feel free.
References aren't essential of course.
Even if your point doesn't relate to what is in the Irish Medical Times article, one can still criticise the study.
Probably best to keep letters under 400 words and ideally less than that again.
Address is: editor@imt.ie that's editor @ imt.ie
Don't forget to put your address in the letter and also a telephone number (which won't be published).
Thanks
It was included in a free newspaper for Irish doctors.
Last year, following publishing a piece on the Santhouse et al. editorial in the British Medical Journal, they published not one but five letters over a series of weeks (John Greensmith, Tom Kindlon, Gerwyn Morris, Orla N Chomhra & Vance Spence (only two with Irish addresses) - that was most of the people who wrote in, as I recall.
They may be glad to fill up space in their newspaper.
People can also put comments online but letters would be preferred. You can always post your letter as a comment if you prefer.
If you sent in a letter to the Lancet, you could get a chance to re-use it (ordinary newspapers might find it too technical). Probably best to not put the references underneath - just put the name of the first author + et al. + year in brackets e.g. (White et al., 2011) to refer to Lancet paper. If you want me to look at it, feel free.
References aren't essential of course.
Even if your point doesn't relate to what is in the Irish Medical Times article, one can still criticise the study.
Probably best to keep letters under 400 words and ideally less than that again.
Address is: editor@imt.ie that's editor @ imt.ie
Don't forget to put your address in the letter and also a telephone number (which won't be published).
Thanks
http://bit.ly/hAvLon
i.e.
http://www.imt.ie/clinical/2011/03/cognitive-behavioural-therapy-not-harmful-in-chronic-fatigue.html
You are here: Home / Clinical times / Cognitive behavioural therapy not harmful in chronic fatigue
Cognitive behavioural therapy not harmful in chronic fatigue
March 18, 2011 By admin 1 Comment
Patient groups’ concerns that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy could be harmful for the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome can be allayed due to a large study showing that both are effective and safe.
But the randomised PACE trial of nearly 650 patients did find that adaptive pacing therapy (APT) – a therapy sometimes favoured by patient groups – was not more helpful in reducing fatigue or physical function than specialist medical care alone (SMC), contrary to the researchers’ initial hypothesis.
The British researchers randomised 160 people to each of the four treatment
groups: CBT, GET or APT combined with specialist medical care, and a final group with specialist medical care only.
GET was based on “deconditioning and exercise intolerance theories of chronic fatigue” and consisted of negotiated, gradual increases in exercise intensity over the period of intervention. APT was based on the “envelope theory of chronic fatigue” and consisted of identifying links between activity and fatigue followed by a plan to avoid exacerbations.
Before treatment began, patient expectations were high for both APT and GET but lower for CBT and SMC, the researchers reported.
Those treated with CBT or GET in combination with SMC did better with respect to both primary outcomes — fatigue, measured on the Chalder fatigue questionnaire and physical function, measured on the short form-36 physical function subscale.
The researchers concluded that both treatments were effective for chronic fatigue with “moderate” effect sizes. They suggested that the lack of benefit for APT combine with SMC could have been a result of the greater than expected improvement with SMC alone.
There were no more adverse reactions to the behavioural interventions than specialist care alone, a finding that was important according to two researchers from the Expert Centre for Chronic Fatigue in the Netherlands.
“This finding is important and should be communicated to patients to dispel unnecessary concerns about the possible detrimental effects of cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy, which will hopefully be a useful reminder of the potential positive effects of both interventions,”
they wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Lancet 2011; Online. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60096-2