Who said Prof Sharpe had left the field? New paper on defending PACE: Sharpe and Chalder

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
4,203
Likes
20,714
Location
UK
(I cannot bring myself to post this under 'Research'.)

After 'quiting the field sue to those 'trolling' patients early this week................Sharpe is baaaack.........again defending PACE against Wilshire, Courtney et al.

Anyone like to pick the bones out of this?


https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral...tkornNMyStpR4nNQbvXAHYVeqXf3sJUZRsPcCVbIYgSGM

PACE was a large carefully designed and intensively monitored clinical trial of different non-drug treatments for CFS. Like all trials, it had limitations that are clearly described in the papers reporting it. However, after carefully reviewing Wilshire et al’s criticisms of the PACE trial findings, we can find no good reason to change its conclusions.
We therefore restate that the PACE trial found that both CBT and GET, when given appropriately as supplements to specialist medical care, are more effective in improving both fatigue and physical functioning in people with CFS, than are APT and SMC alone.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
11,733
Likes
20,162
In this paper they say:
In our paper we explored a number of definitions of recovery using various thresholds on a number of trial outcome variables.
How can you "explore definitions of recovery"? Recovery is a clearcut term. It means you've got better and are no longer ill.

If like the PACE trial authors you start manipulating the meaning of words like "recovery" to make it look as if your treatment works, it's rather dubious.

In the PACE trial, they effectively define recovery as "temporarily feeling better", rather than any long-term improvement. This is what they said in PACE:
Recovery may be taken to imply that the patient has made a transition from ill health to remission and also is at little risk of recurrence (Nisenbaum et al. 2003).

Although we can measure remission, we cannot be certain of the risk of recurrence without long-term follow-up; we therefore use the term ‘recovery’ in this paper to mean recovery from the current episode of the illness.
 

Diwi9

Administrator
Messages
1,125
Likes
4,079
Location
USA
In this paper they say:


How can you "explore definitions of recovery"? Recovery is a clearcut term. It means you've got better and are no longer ill.

If like the PACE trial authors you start manipulating the meaning of words like "recovery" to make it look as if your treatment works, it's rather dubious.

In the PACE trial, they effectively define recovery as "temporarily feeling better", rather than any long-term improvement. This is what they said in PACE:
So, every other measure can be self-report, except a patient's observation of their own recovery?!