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

Midnattsol said:
which is in line with the study protocol for the CBT study where it says participants would be those adolescents that "had developed" cfs
Click to expand...

looks like the part of the project that might have actually had some interesting results never happened

The present project is an intervention trial in the subgroup of patients that actually did develop CFS 6 months after the acute EBV infection. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to either a mental training program (10 sessions) combining elements from cognitive behavioral therapy and music therapy, or routine follow-up from the general practitioner. By its nature, treatment group allocation cannot be blinded; however, both patients and therapists will be blinded for end-point evaluation. An extensive investigational program will be carried out at three time points: Prior to the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and 1 year after the intervention. The program includes: Clinical examination; Pain threshold assessment; Cardiovascular assessment; Cognitive assessment; Sampling of biological material (blood and urine); Questionnaire; Brain fMRI; Qualitative interview; Monitoring of physical activity (accelerometer)
Click to expand...

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT02499302?V_1=View
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Something a bit murky going on there.
No doubt the sleuths will identify what really went on.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Linked Articles
Click to expand...
That link to the retraction doesn't work for me, saying
Access Denied
You are not authorized to access this page "content/4/1/e000620ret".
Click to expand...
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.
 
Kalliope said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Michiel Tack said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
dave30th said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dave30th said:
wait, which study was that? I don't remember seeing a qualitative study, or maybe I'm just addled from US election anxieties
Click to expand...
[B][SIZE=4]Music Therapy for Chronic Fatigue Following Epstein-Barr Virus Infection in ADOLESCENTS said:
[/SIZE][/B]Abstract: This research study, which was a part of arandomized controlled trial, explored music therapy as a part of an individually tailored mental training programfor Chronic Fatigue(CF) following Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection in adolescents. This article presents the qualitative data stemming from the interviews, which focused on music therapy. The interviews were performed after completion of the program. The mental training program consisted of 10 sessions distributed between a family session (1), individual sessions with music therapy (4), and individual cognitive behavioral therapy (6). Music therapy included music listening, improvisation, song writing, instrument training, in addition to suggested homework. The analysis was informed through the procedure of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Results indicated three main themes: i) personal capacity to act through music, ii) subjective understanding of the link between body and mind, and iii) inhabiting the music space. We suggest future music therapy program to be resource- and user oriented, improvisational, and offer training on an instrument. A vital component should be active music listening, comprising verbal communication, relaxation techniques and joint verbal reflection, to foster mentalization. The therapist and the client select music together, while playlists are negotiated, and invited homework include.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom