You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PACE baseline results at BACME conference?
- Thread starter oceanblue
- Start date
I know somebody who was at it. PACE Trial results weren't given. Peter White summed up the conference and amongst other things said results would be out in the next few months.I'd thought that Peter White was presenting baseline results on the PACE trial to the BACME conference last week but haven't seen anything posted on this. Does anyone know if it happened and what was said? thanks
Also: http://www.bartscfsme.org/Documents/PROGRAMME 291110.pdf
This was only announced in the last few weeks as far as I know so think he still expects results to be published soon.To celebrate 25 years of the Bart’s CFS/ME Service
LMDT Training Day
29th November 2010
11.45am
PACE trial: Is knowledge more useful than belief? (Professor White will only give outcome results if the main paper has been published) Professor Peter White Professor of Psychological Medicine
Thanks - I was only expecting baseline data eg demographics and maybe split between different case definitions, rather than the results of different therapies trialled but from what you say he didn't even give that. Thanks for the birthday party leaflet too
Thanks - I was only expecting baseline data eg demographics and maybe split between different case definitions, rather than the results of different therapies trialled but from what you say he didn't even give that. Thanks for the birthday party leaflet too
Did they collect data to allow them to split patients into subgroups by case definition? I've been wondering why studies haven't done this as a matter of course, for years - research could have been a lot farther ahead if they had.
Study protocols should include what analyses are planned, especially big, publicly funded ones like this - some study protocols are published and registered with clinical trials registries (partly so that researchers can't change their story later about what analyses they intended). I would think the PACE planned analyses would be on public record somewhere.
The official protocol is up at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/7/6/Did they collect data to allow them to split patients into subgroups by case definition? I've been wondering why studies haven't done this as a matter of course, for years - research could have been a lot farther ahead if they had.
Study protocols should include what analyses are planned, especially big, publicly funded ones like this - some study protocols are published and registered with clinical trials registries (partly so that researchers can't change their story later about what analyses they intended). I would think the PACE planned analyses would be on public record somewhere.
They look like they will examine the effect of the CDC criteria and ME.
There are a lot of comments at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/7/6/comments
We generally didn't have protocols like this in the past.
More background info can be got by downloading the info at:
http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...L-UK-CFS-ME-PACE-TRIAL-Manuals-are-NOW-ONLINE.