Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS Research' started by Esther12, Aug 8, 2020.
The critiques of PACE were published in different journals.
True, but that only happened once the data were released and it was clear that the claims about PACE were true. And then Keith G wrote an excellent commentary and David Marks at JHP took it on as an issue. But PACE was a major, high-profile study using a lot of public funding, published in the leading medical journal and having had a big impact on policy, or at least reinforcing existing policy.
This is basically a low-quality trade association journal publishing a stupid and egregiously flawed article. But it is ultimately of little consequence and will have no impact on anything except in the minds of those already inclined to share that perspective. Except for the fact that Wessely and Chalder are co-authors, and this shows that they're still up to their regular tricks, I think it would be of no interest at all.
Having said that, if there's a chance of getting it published officially somewhere, that would be great.
Blog: Brian Hughes: Our response to that controversial study on CBT outcomes in chronic fatigue has now been formally published, https://thesciencebit.net/2021/04/1...onic-fatigue-has-now-been-formally-published/
Response to Adamson et al. (2020): ‘Cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome: Outcomes from a specialist clinic in the UK’, 2021, Hughes and Tuller
In a paper published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Adamson et al. (2020) interpret data as showing that cognitive behavioural therapy leads to improvement in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic fatigue. Their research is undermined by several methodological limitations, including: (a) sampling ambiguity; (b) weak measurement; (c) survivor bias; (d) missing data and (e) lack of a control group. Unacknowledged sample attrition renders statements in the published Abstract misleading with regard to points of fact. That the paper was approved by peer reviewers and editors illustrates how non-rigorous editorial processes contribute to systematic publication bias.
Open access, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13591053211008203
It was an extremely easy paper to criticize. The errors were obvious. Just basic stuff you don't do. So many of these papers are like this. But given the names involved and the journal, this one stood out as worthy of attention.
Trial By Error by David Tuller: Journal of Health Psychology Published Hughes-Tuller Critique of Wessely-Chalder CBT Claims
We were delighted that the Journal of Health Psychology was interested in reviewing our critique, and ultimately publishing it. As can be seen by comparing the version we posted on a pre-print server with the one released by the journal, we have added a strong critique of the deficient peer review process to which the Wessely-Chalder study was subjected. The authors have done themselves a real disservice by publishing their findings in a journal with such close ties to one of them, if that association was a factor in the inadequacy of the review process. As a result, the good professors and the journal have all scored an own goal.
The Faculty Lounge What's Going on at the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine? by Steve Lubet
My occasional coauthors David Tuller (UC Berkeley) and Brian Hughes (National University of Ireland) have an important new article in the Journal of Health Psychology. They provide a devastating critique of an ME/CFS study recently published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. As Tuller and Hughes explain, the underlying study suffered from “serious methodological flaws and the highly misleading way in which its results had been presented,” and “key statistical statements in the paper’s Abstract were factually inaccurate.” But that is not why I am posting about it.
Most alarming, from an academic perspective, was the way in which the Royal Society of Medicine first accepted a deeply problematic paper, and then refused to publish a subsequent critique.
Separate names with a comma.