1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

A general thread on the PACE trial!

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Esther12, Nov 7, 2017.

  1. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,239
    Location:
    Norway
    Trish, MEMarge, rvallee and 4 others like this.
  2. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,239
    Location:
    Norway
  3. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    https://twitter.com/user/status/1054291418674614272


    LOL at Sharpe saying 'debate is good'. A few months back he was endorsing the view that debate in the House of Lords was a form of harassment, and claiming that exactly the same thing was now happening with Monaghan's debates.
     
    Trish, Hutan, MEMarge and 10 others like this.
  4. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    I've not looked at Sharpes twitter feed in ages, but he's really not good a discussing things, is he?

    Too many odd things to be worth posting them all, but thought this one was of a bit of interest:

    https://twitter.com/user/status/1054359845833490439


    What about the Science Media Centre? eg:

    http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-unravelling-the-controversy/
     
  5. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,263
    @dave30th @Eagle . Perhaps something that needs some research and communication before the next Westminster debate?
     
    Barry, MEMarge, ukxmrv and 1 other person like this.
  6. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,277
    Location:
    London, UK
    Suppression of those who you disagree with is really not.

    That is presumably why it is not right to send threatening emails or other forms of communication to people's employers.
     
  7. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
  8. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    andypants, Hutan, Trish and 3 others like this.
  9. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    Wessely says

    But patients in the control group received far less treatment than the other arms. How can he say that the control group controlled for nonspecific effects? Is my understanding of the term wrong?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018
  10. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    He is presuming that each group in some way "controls" for the other groups. They even tried to build that into the analysis (in the protocol). Actually, it's more evidence they wanted the APT group to be the "control" group.

    But they didn't reproduce "normal practice", because normal practice is to combine CBT and GET.
     
    andypants, Trish, rvallee and 3 others like this.
  11. Roy S

    Roy S Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    459
    Location:
    Illinois, USA
    andypants, Trish and MEMarge like this.
  12. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    I've been trying to get my head round this issue of controls with psychological therapies, and getting confused. As I understand it, a control group should be identical to intervention groups except for the 'active ingredient' in the intervention itself'; any differences in outcomes then have a good probability of being due to the intervention and nothing else.

    But what happens when trialling psychological interventions? Where the intervention is itself about motivating people and encouraging better self esteem etc., etc? What sort of control do you need for such a trial? Do you give the control group the same level of attention of non-motivational attention, which sounds a distinctly dubious control to me. This has been bugging me and I'd like to understand it better.
     
    andypants, rvallee and Lucibee like this.
  13. large donner

    large donner Guest

    Messages:
    1,214
    The best way around all this is just to drop all the objective measures.
     
    andypants, EzzieD, chrisb and 5 others like this.
  14. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,277
    Location:
    London, UK
    There is a Catch22 involved and a very subtle one. The real problem is that the effect may depend on the therapist believing in the treatment. So you need to compare different treatments where the therapists believe equally in their effectiveness. Maybe the comparison of CBT to GET is close to that but the result is no difference so that does notes us either is effective. You really need a bogus treatment that therapists believe in. The Lightning Process gets close to that. And it had an effect on subjective outcomes. So everything is pointing to the idea that it does not really matter what the treatment is as long as the therapist believes in it.

    But then you have the problem that the effect in these trials may only occur in trials - where the belief of the therapist induces a trial subject to take on a positively biased role - as a trial subject. So the results tell you nothing about what would happen in ordinary practice.

    What people doing trials often forget is that you have to put your wide angled glasses on and think about what happens in real life. Sticking to some rules in a book is no good. In real life all sorts of things affect what happens - and they all have to be controlled for in different ways.
     
    andypants, EzzieD, Barry and 13 others like this.
  15. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    One of the major problems with PACE was the complexity of what it was trying to do. It was simultaneously trying to test 3 different therapies and control for all their 'active ingredients' against one another. There is no way to adequately 'control' such a trial. So when MS says it was 'just a trial', he is wrong. When he says that each intervention 'had its own model', he is admitting that it wasn't (and couldn't be) adequately controlled. And when your intervention and outcome measures are so closely linked as to essentially be an education program in how to fill in questionnaires to get the desired result, you definitely can't control it properly.

    I'm now beginning to wonder whether they deliberately made it so complex so that if they couldn't understand what was going on, no-one else was likely to either. Oops.
     
  16. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
    I have only managed to find a small portion of the book that Wessely co-authored:
    Clinical Trials in Psychiatry. As you would expect, a lot is his usual historical stuff.
    But there is this bit which I thought may be of interest:

    wessely - clinical trials.jpg
     
  17. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    As ever, he is rewriting the evidence to suit, so that folks can say, "Oh, this textbook says it's all OK if I do it like this."
    Just no!

    Blinding of surgery can be tricky, but there are ways round it. Sham procedures, for example. But he doesn't mention them.

    Why would using a blinded evaluator help if you are recording said subjective responses using a paper questionnaire?

    The main problem with blinding psychological trials is that the patient absolutely knows what they are getting, and so does the therapist. The assessment is a small factor in comparison to the major biases introduced by the main lack of blinding.

    The last bit, he's just hedging.

    It's all simply dreadful!
     
  18. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,277
    Location:
    London, UK
    I suppose that counts as:

    'Two legs are probably OK as long as you have another two in the air - so lets say two legs good then.'
     
    andypants, JohnTheJack, Barry and 3 others like this.
  19. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    I was going to add, that's why 'blinding' and 'placebo control' go together 'like chicken and... another chicken'
    (for all you Buffy fans out there).
     
  20. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,277
    Location:
    London, UK
    @Sly Saint What was the page number? I might find myself having to quote that bit.
     
    andypants, MeSci, MEMarge and 6 others like this.

Share This Page