@Simon, maybe you could also post that to the thread on the paper: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...me-long-term-follow-up-from-pace-trial.40817/
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
One of the points raised by Coyne is that the follow up data is uninterpretable because it's no longer gathered in a randomized clinical trial.
For example, we can see patients who were assigned to SMC but didn't do CBT and GET had lower fatigue scores than those who did, but we don't know what this means because things are no longer randomized.
Thanks.Things I do to keep @Dolphin happy...
Would you like a cappuccino and foot massage with that, sir?If you or anyone else felt inclined, maybe the SMC and APT groups could be combined, using the appropriate weightings (i.e. the sample sizes). Just an idea.
Just to add that the participants in the Pace trial were majority women, mean age 38 years.
For that additional treatment to explain why APT/SMC groups effectively caught up with the CBT/GET groups, the half that went on to have CBT/GET would have to do spectacularly well, with no change among those that didn't. In fact, there was effectively no difference between the two. This shows up the authors' wishful thinking that it was the wonder of CBT/GEt that enabled to have the APT/SMC groups to catch up by 2.5 years.
If you or anyone else felt inclined, maybe the SMC and APT groups could be combined, using the appropriate weightings (i.e. the sample sizes). Just an idea.
No trouble at all, Sir: see below - cappucino and foot massage are in the post, my apologies for omitting last time. (Actually, I'm just annoyed I didn't think of this graph myself )
View attachment 13324
Would appreciate anyone checking the numbers look sensible, and any suggestions for improving the presentation as I'd like to tweet this later.
Ideally I'd put the fatigue access on a secondary axis and reverse the scale (so both sets of bars go upwards), and scale the fatigue bigger (since it's 0-33 vs 0-100 for SF36). But I can't work out how to do this in Excel 2013. I'll add a note that no differences are statistically significant.
It'd be nice if the "None" bars were grey instead of white, since there's a white background.Would appreciate anyone checking the numbers look sensible, and any suggestions for improving the presentation as I'd like to tweet this later.
I'd also like a cappuccino. Maple syrup, almond milk, and organic coffee, with cinnamon and dark chocolate sprinkles on top will suffice
I like a little coffee with my sweet beverageThat drink sounds worse than the PACE methodology. (but then I don't approve of milk in coffee!).
Thank you.No trouble at all, Sir: see below - cappucino and foot massage are in the post, my apologies for omitting last time. (Actually, I'm just annoyed I didn't think of this graph myself )
View attachment 13324
Would appreciate anyone checking the numbers look sensible, and any suggestions for improving the presentation as I'd like to tweet this later.
Ideally I'd put the fatigue access on a secondary axis and reverse the scale (so both sets of bars go upwards), and scale the fatigue bigger (since it's 0-33 vs 0-100 for SF36). But I can't work out how to do this in Excel 2013. I'll add a note that no differences are statistically significant.
A clinically useful difference between the means of the primary outcomes was defined as 0·5 of the SD of these measures at baseline,31 equating to 2 points for Chalder fatigue questionnaire and 8 points for short form-36. A secondary post-hoc analysis compared the proportions of participants who had improved between baseline and 52 weeks by 2 or more points of the Chalder fatigue questionnaire, 8 or more points of the short form-36, and improved on both.
I'd add an extra note to clarify that improvement is in opposite directions for each measure. One up, one down. Does sort of say that in the title, but needs to be more explicit, I think.Ideally I'd put the fatigue access on a secondary axis and reverse the scale (so both sets of bars go upwards), and scale the fatigue bigger (since it's 0-33 vs 0-100 for SF36). But I can't work out how to do this in Excel 2013. I'll add a note that no differences are statistically significant.
Would appreciate anyone checking the numbers look sensible, and any suggestions for improving the presentation as I'd like to tweet this later.
Sadly that's pretty-well impossible without the raw data, though it's clear from the small differences and wide confidence intervals it wouldn't be significant (even allowing for CIs being smaller in combined samples).Calculate the p-values? (the difference doesn't look significant to me, but a weak p-value would confirm it.)
That's probably the most practical approach. Here's my attempt at graphing that, just for fatigue.So for the Chalder Fatigue scale, the no CBT or GET treatment group did 0.2* of a clinically useful difference better than the CBT/GET treatment group. (Or 0.1 SD).
And for the SF-36, the the CBT/GET treatment group did 0.14* (0.1375)* of a clinically useful difference better than no CBT or GET treatment group. (or 0.07 SD)
Is that 0.4 'Difference' statistically significant? If not, I would ditch it.I could put a dotted line for clinically useful difference instead, drawn at the height of the top of the 'clinically useful difference' bar i.e. -2.0 ahead of the 'Any CBT/GET' bar. (And maybe have a second dotted line at the top of that bar, with 'clincally useful difference' as the label on the top line.)
Thanks! (But what do you have to do to get a 'like' round here )Nice
Yes, more intuitive, but confusing with Physical Function going up - and this is aimed at a wide audience, not just research geeks. Have changed title from 'fall' to 'change' as you are right about contradiction.- the direction of the graphic, (invert top to bottom, with the bars, scale, and arrow falling). More intuitive?
Almost certainly not, but can't quote p values and confirm as can't compute (see my previous post).Is that 0.4 'Difference' statistically significant? If not, I would ditch it.
Probably! Just copied and pasted from excel, guess if I made graph bigger in excel, it would make a higher res picture when copied.You can do a higher res version?