Graham
Senior Moment
- Messages
- 5,188
- Location
- Sussex, UK
What about just adding this as a final scene in the PACE race? Is it clear enough do you think?
Hi Graham, I like that but it was confusing for a second that you are using the same icon at the start and at the safe crossing point. Maybe a different or modified graphic would be better? Maybe a "Walk/Don't Walk" sign? Or just "Don't Walk"? Bye, Alex
(Not serious)What about just adding this as a final scene in the PACE race? Is it clear enough do you think?
View attachment 3545
Thanks for link. I heard it was also covered on Dutch TV.Here's the BBC's take on it (video):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18437971
Watching the BBC video, when they cross the pelican crossing, I can't help seeing the PACE evaluation project 6MWDT video in my mind!
Interesting. However, they're not population norms from what I can see. People in "diverse patient groups" likely to be less healthy than individuals who aren't patients.If anyone has been looking for studies that define ceiling effects for SF-36 PF, I've come across a paper...
Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?
C A McHorney and A R Tarlov
This is found on pages 293-307 inside a journal:
Quality of Life Research volume 4 1995
(Publisher = Oxford: Rapid Communications of Oxford)
Here's the details:
Table A.4.
Floor and ceiling effects for the SF-36 survey (n=3445)
SF-36 physical functioning
Floor effect = 1%
Ceiling effect = 19%
(Source: McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu JFR, et al., The MOS 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994; 32: 40-66)
Also of interest, is that it gives a 'statistically significant' score for an individual patient's health, for example as the questionnaire might be used in a clinical setting, as 23 points for SF-36 PF. Note that this does not apply to the PACE Trial study though, because it was looking at the results for a large number of patients. It's only relevant when looking at one individual patient to assess their scores, such as in a clinical setting.
Interesting. However, they're not population norms from what I can see. People in "diverse patient groups" likely to be less healthy than individuals who aren't patients.
If one looks at:
Velanovich V. Behavior and analysis of 36-item short-form health survey data for surgical quality-of-life research. Arch Surg. 2007;142(5):473-478.
Free at: http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=142&issue=5&page=473
In Table 2, it gives US population norms.
38.7% get 100/100 for SF-36 PF.
(Not serious)
I think I may have watched too many South Park cartoons and the like: I can't help myself thinking of one or more other cartoons where a car comes along, runs into the slow movers, and we see lots of blood!
What about just adding this as a final scene in the PACE race? Is it clear enough do you think?
View attachment 3545
I think I may have watched too many South Park cartoons and the like: I can't help myself thinking of one or more other cartoons where a car comes along, runs into the slow movers, and we see lots of blood!
Chris Clark is long gone from AfME (around 2006/2007). I think he made a lot of bad calls.I wonder if these organizations are proud of these earlier recommendations, especially now that they have both spoken out against the trial results? I wonder if Chris Clark from AfME still stands by his 2003 statement that "This study should end the debate about the value of pacing." (https://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0305C&L=CO-CURE&P=R85&I=-3)
Personally, I think it was a very good idea for AfME to support formal testing of Pacing alongside CBT/GET. But such a shame they screwed it up by using a form of Pacing with a limit of 75% of available energy (reduced by PACE to 70% for the trial) - which I suspect is used by no one in the real worldand pretty-well doomed that form of pacing to failure. As I've mentioned before, nobody at AfME was able to explain to me the logic for the 75% rule.I wonder if these organizations are proud of these earlier recommendations, especially now that they have both spoken out against the trial results? I wonder if Chris Clark from AfME still stands by his 2003 statement that "This study should end the debate about the value of pacing." (https://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0305C&L=CO-CURE&P=R85&I=-3)
contains this equation:Ross RM, Murthy JN, Wollak ID, Jackson AS. The six minute walk test accurately estimates mean peak oxygen uptake. BMC Pulm Med. 2010 May 26;10:31. Free at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2466/10/31
Interesting! Though doesn't really fit with actual VO2max data on CFS patients , which have means from 20 ml/kg/min to around 30, as discussed here: Is there any evidence that deconditioning alone causes pain and fatigue? I think the BMC study was only conducted on cardiopulmonary patients.Apologies if this has been done before - don't remember it:
contains this equation:
Mean Peak VO2 (ml / kg /min) = 4.948 + (0.023*Mean 6 MWD (meters))
Plugging in the GET results from completion of the PACE Trial, it would be 13.665ml / kg /min! (not very good!)
Yes, perhaps the extrapolation to CFS patients can't be made from these figures on closer inspection. The title didn't suggest the equation was specific to cardiopulmonary patients but that might be due to the journal.Interesting! Though doesn't really fit with actual VO2max data on CFS patients , which have means from 20 ml/kg/min to around 30, as discussed here: Is there any evidence that deconditioning alone causes pain and fatigue? I think the BMC study was only conducted on cardiopulmonary patients.