Before we started the trial, we were advised that the number and scope of the outcome measures were too great and that it might reduce the proportion of participants making it through to the end of the trial. Actigraphy was the obvious measure to reject because of its burden in time and effort required by participants. The patient charity advising us agreed that this would be sensible.
Before we started the trial,
This is misleading and irrelevant, they had already collected full baseline actigraphic data.
It is also not clear who advised them that
"the number and scope of the outcome measures were too great and that it might reduce the proportion of participants making it through to the end of the trial. Actigraphy was the obvious measure to reject because of its burden in time and effort required by participants."
The way that statement is worded, it sounds like AFME only agreed with it, not that they originally advised them of it.
It is not even clear to me which parts of it AFME agreed with, the first part (the 'problem') or the second part (the 'solution'), or both.
Nor is it clear that the 'advice' they received included the recommendation that actigraphy is the obvious candidate for rejection, or if they just decided that themselves. There is nothing obvious about it, the reason given certainly doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Very slippery statement overall, that they (and AFME) need to clarify.