Countrygirl
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,429
- 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
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.