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

CBT combined with music therapy for chronic fatigue following Epstein-Barr virus infection in adolescents: a feasibility study, 2020, Wyller et al

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Dolphin, Apr 15, 2020.

  1. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
    looks like the part of the project that might have actually had some interesting results never happened

    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT02499302?V_1=View
     
  2. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,262
    Mithriel and MEMarge like this.
  3. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,237
    Location:
    Norway
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2020
  4. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,271
    Location:
    London, UK
    Something a bit murky going on there.
    No doubt the sleuths will identify what really went on.
     
    TrixieStix, MEMarge, Marky and 4 others like this.
  5. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,237
    Location:
    Norway
    The retraction note states according to Retraction Watch's article:

    - We undertook a thorough internal review of the original manuscript, the peer review and the editorial process to understand whether and how this had happened. We identified a mistake in the editorial process which led to this misrepresentation of the research that was undertaken.

    - We acknowledge that this was not due to error on behalf of the authors. In line with the Committee on Publication Ethics’ Retraction Guidelines we decided to pursue the option to retract and republish. With the authors’ agreement, we invited the authors to resubmit their research written up as originally undertaken. This has undergone editorial and peer review as a new submission.
     
  6. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,574
  7. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    to state that the authors are not responsible for publishing a fully powered trial as if it were a feasibility study from the start is preposterous.
     
    Joh, 2kidswithME, andypants and 21 others like this.
  8. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Both of these links, https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000620.abstract and https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000620.full, which are to the original paper have this note at the bottom of the main section of the webpage.
    That link to the retraction doesn't work for me, saying
    I also tried it in Sci hub and it doesn't work there either.

    The full text of the original paper is still there to be read, so retraction doesn't seem to mean much at the moment.
     
  9. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    Now this retraction needs to be pointed out to the ethics committee in Norway, since Wyller is the lead on the proposed Lightning Process study.
     
    Joh, andypants, EzzieD and 14 others like this.
  10. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,296
    Location:
    Canada
    Have to wait on whether this is actual but this is a blatant misrepresentation of what happened. As for the matter of this being an error, when it was pointed out there was clear dismissal that there was an issue at all, despite glaring problems. So something else would be going on because they clearly have no qualms about making stuff up and misrepresenting everything they do.

    The framing is odd: retract and replace. Those two things are mutually exclusive, so which is it? Also this is not something that should have multiple do-overs, it suggests a system that is thoroughly broken and essentially unable to deal with fact-checking when the original intent is political.
     
    andypants, MEMarge and MSEsperanza like this.
  11. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,574
    Kennair at NTNU is the lead supervisor, while Wyller is a co-supervisor from UiO.
     
    MEMarge, Marky, Atle and 4 others like this.
  12. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    thanks for the clarification. And isn't Crawley also involved as an advisor?
     
  13. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,574
    Yes, that's right. Bonus points for international + high publishing rate.
     
    2kidswithME, MEMarge, Marky and 3 others like this.
  14. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,494
    Location:
    Belgium
    I find it really difficult to imagine a scenario where the issues that were raised were the fault of the editors and not of the authors of the study. Would like to see the full explanation of what happened.
     
    Woolie, Joh, andypants and 15 others like this.
  15. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,574
    Yes. And how does this square with that other study with results from the qualitative interviews? Which did say it was nested inside a randomized clinical trial.
     
    andypants, MEMarge, Simbindi and 2 others like this.
  16. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    wait, which study was that? I don't remember seeing a qualitative study, or maybe I'm just addled from US election anxieties
     
    2kidswithME, MEMarge and MSEsperanza like this.
  17. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,271
    Location:
    London, UK
    Yes, this is what I was implying! Authors get proofs to read. If they found their study mischaracterised it is up to them to point that out.

    It is hard to escape the impression that the editor is baking pork pies.
     
  18. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,574

    https://mmd.iammonline.com/index.php/musmed/article/view/679

    My university is not a subscriber to the journal so haven't been able to read it.
     
    andypants, MEMarge and MSEsperanza like this.
  19. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    thanks. I'll see if Berkeley library can access it
     
    MEMarge likes this.
  20. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,855
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Reviewer:
    I struggle to understand from the aims of the study and the way the study is described whether this was intended as a feasibility study – i.e. to look at feasibility (can this be done?), acceptability (how do participants experience it?) and to give some indication of potential effect sizes to power a future larger scale trial, or whether this was intended as a fully powered trial. Throughout, I think this needs to be clarified for the reader and interpretations/conclusions drawn in light of what the aim was.

    Author's response:
    Thank you. We agree – this study should be regarded a feasibility study, and the manuscript has been rephrased accordingly

    https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/bmjpo/4/1/e000620.reviewer-comments.pdf
     
    Joh, andypants, Robert 1973 and 7 others like this.

Share This Page