Search results

Does anyone know if they changed the outcome measures for the full MAGENTA trial from those outlined in the feasibility trial? That would be an especially big problem. That's what happened in SMILE--primary and secondary outcomes were swapped based on the feasibility trial findings.

Well, remember the packet of study abstracts that Mayo provided to back up its treatment included the Lightning Process study.

I'm planning to go but haven't really looked over the schedule yet.

isn't the change on day 2 measured in gas output? that doesn't reflect a change in muscle chemistry?

When discussing GET, I've generally referred to it as "possibly harmful" or something along those lines. And I've also indicated that it is contra-indicated if the cardinal symptom, per IOM and others, is PEM or "exertion intolerance" or whatever it's called. I have also cited the surveys that...

When discussing GET, I've generally referred to it as "possibly harmful" or something along those lines. And I've also indicated that it is contra-indicated if the cardinal symptom, per IOM and others, is PEM or "exertion intolerance" or whatever it's called. I have also cited the surveys that...

Thanks, @Esther12--I've fixed the typo and linked to the Courtney comments

yes, sending it to them today.

Just to clarify slightly, I think I said that I only knew of Berkeley. I didn't exclude that it was being used elsewhere, just that I didn't know about it. So I wanted to make sure that if the statement was going to be used, it was not being based on something someone thought I'd said.

exactly. this is why you have a study protocol that lays out beforehand how your team plans to analyze the data once its collected.

wait. pigs can't fly?

One could of course argue that the results, as presented in the reanalysis paper, were in fact reliable as outcomes of the study. They showed that even with all the built-in bias from the study design, they didn't get decent reports of benefits.

yeah, I saw that. but she seemed to be talking about CBT/GET, so I'm going to assume the 2004 first version of the exercise review is what it's supposed to be referring to. but it's pretty unclear so that's really just a guess.

Oh, in answering my own question, I assume the first is the 2004 review of exercise for CFS.

Does anyone understand the Watt reference to three Cochrane reviews? Besides the 2008 CBT review, is she referring to both the 2015 and 2017 publication of the same exercise review? Or what?

The participant that I know of who withdrew did it after she had finished the trial. That's when she found out they had links to disability insurers. So they already had all her data. That's why they claim it took months to recover from the removal. I fail to understand how, with computers...

During the FOIA tribunal they used it as an example of someone so concerned about confidentiality that she withdrew her data--in other words, they used it to support her argument. In fact, the only confidentiality she was worried about was that she was in dispute over disability and the PACE...

In fact she withdrew consent after finishing the study when she found out the PACE authors had links with disability insurance companies. she was very angry not to have been told about these conflicts of interests. they tried to convince her to let them use her data but she refused. I don't know...

I used to say that the recovery paper did not report any approval by any oversight committees. More recently I've simply stated it as a declarative. If they had approval, they would have cited it. Absent mention of oversight committee approval, as far as I'm concerned it means they didn't get...

also, these are treatments for symptoms arising from ME, not for the ME itself. I think that's what the sentence means essentially, but it's ambiguous.