1. Guest, click here and read the 'News in Brief' post for w/c 8th July.
    Dismiss Notice

BMJ Archives of Diseases in Childhood: ''Editor’s note on correction to Crawley et al. (2018)'', 2019, Nick Brown. (SMILE LP Trial)

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS Research' started by Kalliope, Jul 11, 2019 at 3:52 PM.

  1. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,047
    Likes Received:
    21,164
    Location:
    Norway


    BMJ has "corrected" the Lightning Process study but has allowed its conclusions to stand, as far as I can tell. I will have more to say about this. Apparently, the authors have convinced the journal that the outcome swapping had nothing to do with the fact that the revised primary outcome had positive results: "The process has additionally involved seeking assurance from the authors that the change in primary outcome was not influenced by (positive) findings in the feasibility phase."

    Everything was an innocent mistake after all!

    https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2019/07/11/archdischild-2017-313375ednote?fbclid=IwAR3-LBW7tdYPwycVC0p0ozmkjdT6bzMx9nz0XVrrfPk97Rp59e1vafba3P0
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2019 at 9:12 AM
  2. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,072
    Likes Received:
    25,407
    It shouldn't matter whether or not the editor believes it was all an innocent mistake, what matters is that the BMJ should never have published it.

    "The process has additionally involved seeking assurance from the authors that the change in primary outcome was not influenced by (positive) findings in the feasibility phase."

    Would a pharmaceutical company be allowed to offer such a gentlemanly assurance?
     
  3. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,546
    Likes Received:
    74,208
    Location:
    UK
    Out of curiosity I had a look at all the threads we have on David Tuller's efforts to get this dealt with. Here are all the threads I found:

    Dec 2017
    Tuller / Trial By Error: The Crawley Chronicles, Resumed

    Blog: David Tuller, "Trial By Error: My Questions for the Science Media Centre"

    January 2018
    David Tuller: Trial By Error: Professor Crawley’s Bogus BuzzFeed Claims - 17th January 2018

    Trial By Error: A Letter to Archives of Disease in Childhood

    February 2018
    Trial By Error: A Letter to BMJ Open

    March 2018
    David Tuller - Trial By Error: My Exchange With Archives of Disease in Childhood

    April 2018
    Tuller, Trial By Error: Our Latest Tango with BMJ Open…

    May 2018
    David Tuller: Trial By Error: NICE's Consideration of the Lightning Process

    June 2018
    David Tuller: Trial By Error: BMJ Still "Looking Into" Lightning Process Paper

    David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Letter to MP Monaghan About BMJ Studies

    David Tuller: Trial By Error: A Letter to Health Officials About BMJ’s Lax Editorial Standards

    David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Letter to the Science Media Centre about BMJ Study

    David Tuller: Trial By Error: More Letters About BMJ’s Flawed Pediatric Studies

    David Tuller: Trial by Error: My exchange with Professor Bishop

    July 2018
    David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Letter To Fiona Godlee

    David Tuller: Trial By Error: Waiting for Godlee

    David Tuller: Trial By Error: The Contentless “Editor’s Note” About the Lightning Process Trial

    August 2018
    David Tuller: Trial By Error: Another Letter to BMJ's Dr. Godlee

    October 2018
    David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Latest Letter to Archives of Disease in Childhood

    David Tuller: Trial By Error: Where's My Apology, BMJ Open?

    November 2018
    David Tuller: Trial By Error: Yet Another Letter About the Lightning Process Study

    January 2019
    David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Letter to LP's Study's Senior Author

    Trial By Error: Bristol Investigating Crawley Papers

    February 2019
    Trial By Error: Letters to Fiona Godlee and Nigel Hawkes

    April 2019
    Trial By Error: My Latest Letter to Bristol’s Legal Department

    May 2019
    David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Most Recent Exchange with Bristol

    Trial By Error: A Plea to Fiona Godlee on a Familiar Topic

    Trial By Error: The Lightning Process Is “Effective”? Really?

    June 2019
    David Tuller: Trial By Error: Time to Retract the LP Study; Letter to Archives of Disease in Childhood

    Trial By Error: Another Review Mentions LP Study and Prompts More Letters

    Trial By Error: An Update about the Pediatric MUS Systematic Review

    July 2019
    Trial By Error: FOI Response from Bristol about LP Study; Correction in BJGP about MUS
     
    Graham, Barry, Forbin and 35 others like this.
  4. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    623
    Likes Received:
    10,214
    wow! what kind of an insane person would devote that kind of energy on such a piece of garbage??
     
  5. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,546
    Likes Received:
    74,208
    Location:
    UK
  6. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,546
    Likes Received:
    74,208
    Location:
    UK
    And the really annoying thing is, now they tell us that while you were doing all that work, they were quietly getting on with a process of editing and reviewing. They could have informed you of that at any stage, and saved you all that trouble.

    And after all that, they cravenly gave in to Crawley et al's ridiculous claim that the outcome switching was not influenced by the results of the pilot.

    Piffle I say.
     
  7. large donner

    large donner Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    8,070
    How exactly have the BMJ issued a correction in this case?

    Which protocol now appears as the original one on the paper and how is history revision permitted in such circumstances?

    If they have outlined the correction to show the original protocol doesn't that change the "positive results" when matched to the outcome swapping?
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019 at 6:24 PM
    Ellie_Finesse, Barry, Sean and 14 others like this.
  8. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    6,692
    Likes Received:
    49,811
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    The right kind?
     
    Forbin, sea, Sarah94 and 28 others like this.
  9. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,872
    Likes Received:
    12,937
    The scientific method seems now to be the method by which papers come to be published in "scientific" journals.
     
    Annamaria, Barry, WillowJ and 16 others like this.
  10. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,072
    Likes Received:
    25,407
    It looks like the original version of the article is still available on PMC, and I archived a copy here in case it's useful: https://web.archive.org/web/20190711172758/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865512/

    I tried to compare the text here ( bit of a mess - I had trouble getting this to work and I didn't compare the tables - anyone want to try to clean things up? I fear my poor attempt could lead to people missing important changes): https://www.diffchecker.com/AvCo4xsy

    Edit: I'm an idiot and wasted my time - they listed the changes here - what follows is just the bits I pulled out on my own so I'd recommend reading their info: https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2019/07/11/archdischild-2017-313375corr1

    It looks like they removed this:

    Added stuff:

    Finally we get info on their original primary outcome... they didn't have 'capacity' to collect it:

    Are they planning to correct the ISRCTN (they got the acronym wrong) page which still falsely claims that the trial was prospectively registered?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019 at 6:43 PM
    Barry, JohnTheJack, sea and 10 others like this.
  11. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,825
    Likes Received:
    14,780
    Location:
    Canada
    This is pathetic. How is any of this seriously worth damaging BMJ's reputation like this? I know they expect no consequences for it but inevitably there will be. This would never be tolerated in a non-controversial disease and once the veil of controversy is lifted there will be hard questions.

    Basically BMJ's position, like PLOS's position a few years earlier, is that their rules have a secret "or whatever" clause where things that are required can be waived off for inexplicable reasons. Those rules are subject to arbitrary suspension whenever someone feels like it. Just a suggestion, no big deal. Scientific method, shientific shmethod.

    The whole study becomes even more meaningless given this. And it remains, its extraordinary conclusions placed on the same level as any large double-blinded placebo-controlled trial, because... reasons. The political demand for this ideology is something to watch. No matter the cost, no matter the consequences, this insane project will be bullied through.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019 at 10:29 PM
  12. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,800
    Likes Received:
    10,496
    So this stands for NICE' s consideration. Wonderful....
     
    Barry, MEMarge, MSEsperanza and 5 others like this.
  13. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,072
    Likes Received:
    25,407
    Barry, JohnTheJack, Dolphin and 6 others like this.
  14. large donner

    large donner Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    8,070
    Well this is the thing, at what point does a government body decide to consider whether private publications like the BMJ and the Lancet need to be adjudicated over for their own bias?

    Or do they go on forever and a day just ignoring that private publications can get things appallingly wrong and then just dig their heels in knowing that they can hide behind, "governments should not interfere with science."

    What happens when private publications have made a complete hash of science and realise they have to double down, obfuscate, deny, ignore and worse simply to protect their own reputation.

    What happens when they are just incompetent idiots?

    Do government agencies that affect public health care just have to ignore the elephant in the room and claim they have to issue advice based on the "scientific evidence" published in the private domain especially when that evidence has been bought and paid for with public funds.

    Its such a cluster fuck of the public paying for their own abuse via collection of public funds by the government who are supposedly there to serve the people.

    It's pathetic when it becomes even clearer that the, "scientific outcomes" often start out as political desires.

    Its an unmerry-go-round.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019 at 1:38 AM
    Annamaria, Daisy, MEMarge and 6 others like this.
  15. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,546
    Likes Received:
    74,208
    Location:
    UK
    It's still an unblinded trial with subjective outcome measures, so not scientifically useful.

    And there is no long term follow up (LTFU) data as far as I know. Other trials such as PACE and FINE with transient improvements shown on subjective measures in the short term found the effects had gone by LTFU.

    We also now have the data, which looks to me like a mess with lots of missing scores and some meaningless scores. @JohnTheJack I hope someone is looking closely at the data for possible re-analysis.
     
    Annamaria, JohnTheJack, inox and 13 others like this.
  16. large donner

    large donner Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    8,070
    One of the reasons being the changed protocol decided not to use the objective school records as a measure of attendance and just asked the kids if they had attended or not and never matched the two.
     
    Forbin, Dolphin, MEMarge and 5 others like this.
  17. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    932
    Likes Received:
    9,727
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    O. M. G. This is a car crash. A mega-wreck. Just look at it! LOOK AT IT!!!!

    They've been allowed to correct it to admit to all sorts of shenanigans. And still keep the same Conclusions. Flippin 'eck!

    Cross-linking with my analysis on the other thread.

    I'm going to look at this in more detail, and judging by the timeline from the editor's note, they only released the data once re-publication was assured. It should have "expressions of concern" all over it. Like my face at the moment.

    lol
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019 at 11:13 PM
  18. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,379
    Likes Received:
    29,220
    I always reckon you have to be a little bit mad to stay sane :)
     
    Annamaria, inox, Sarah94 and 8 others like this.
  19. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    13,041
    Clearly we need more insane people.
     
    Annamaria, Barry, inox and 8 others like this.
  20. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    5,266
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    From the editor's note;
    Would be interesting to see these reviews as well as the "further unpublished work" that "suggests [school attendance using school records] highly correlated with the self report measure we used" and "could have provided an objective outcome" if only we had the "capacity to check" this. (EC & et al 2018)

    (Edited to remove some muddled thoughts).
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019 at 9:39 AM
    Annamaria, Barry, inox and 10 others like this.

Share This Page