Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
It went from a 30% "recovery" in the Bleijenberg & Knoop comment, to then being reported as being "one third" recovered, to now between 30%-40%. It's like Chinese whispers rather than science.
The original 30% figure referred to how many patients were in "normal range" after a year, but "normal range" is a statistical description, specific to this study, and doesn't mean 'normal'. One would have thought the Lancet might have picked up on that, being a prestigious journal and all that!
And the 30% figure refers to participants who received both SMC+CBT. In fact, only up to 16% of participants 'responded' (by at least a minimal amount) to treatment by CBT and GET, and that's only if we agree with the authors questionable definition of what qualifies as a 'response' (and we don't agree!).
And these figures don't even account for severely affected patients, who weren't included in the PACE Trial, and who don't respond to psychological interventions (as per the FINE Trial).
I could go on, but you all already know it all... Sorry... Was on a bit of a rant there!