Cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures (CODES): a ... multicentre, randomised controlled trial (2020) Goldstein, Chalder

How convenient.

 

While this practice remains problematic, setting a minimal period of time before sharing the data of a large study is not unusual as it gives the authors enough time to publish all of their findings. I had not yet seen a group of researchers set an end date, though — this is worrying.

 

Yes. I’ve never seen an ‘expiration date’ set like this.

 

It's weird how a cornerstone of science is peer review and yet the idea of post-publication peer review is not a thing, it's even widely known that journals and editors don't care much about errors after publication unless there is backlash to their reputation. Post-publication peer review should be even more significant than pre-publication, it should be the main form, otherwise errors just creep up, never corrected. Flawed research just keeps getting cited, almost like it's on purpose.

You can't even do that in the video game industry. If your game has bugs post-launch, you fix them, provide a patch. Otherwise people will not buy from you again. But it's different when you are a complete monopoly on a completely inelastic service, one where people don't have a choice, there is nothing else. The demand for healthcare is infinite, so they can simply neglect a significant % of their duties and still have too much work.

 

Who is this author it's sounds more of marketing Informercial piece than a proper scientific explanation

 

I had a quick listen so the patientbwas having very different seizures from the normal and may have never picked up by eeg.
Does that mean if certain tests aren't done due to doctor bias or not having knowledge about certain types of uncommon or rare disease that have uncommon symptoms.
We can safely say that the whole ideal or construct of fnd is useless and unhelpful if further tests are denied or not given or technology is not capable of detection or the doctor is completely incompetent, starved of time or doe not do a complete history.
The patient is trapped in this horrible nightmare because of doctor incompetence and therefore they should wipe clean fnd from the medical system and sometimes be frank and say I do not know.

 

Looking at all the authors it's the who who of fnd. Since the trial was completely crap and invalid. Does that imply that the complete ideal of fnd and associated treatments are crap and invalid especially from Dr Stone and gang

 

Just stumbled on this. After the primary outcome at 52 weeks showed no difference between the groups, they’ve since published a paper showing there was a difference at 6 months. I should note that seizure frequency, while a more objective outcome than various self-report questionnaires, were still based on self-report and thus prone to bias. CODES was an open-label study.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35228117/

 

unless they happen to be our studies, in which case we can interpret them however suits us.