Corrected proof: Treatment outcome in adults with CFS: a prospective study in England, CFS/ME National Outcomes Database, 2013, 2020, Crawley,White

Treatment outcome in adults with chronic fatigue syndrome: a prospective study in England based on the CFS/ME National Outcomes Database

E Crawley, S M Collin, P D White, K Rimes, J A C Sterne, M T May CFS/ME National Outcomes Database

(originally published 2013)

https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/doi/10.1093/qjmed/hcaa090/5828335

 

But. We know for a fact that those services don't do any such monitoring of outcomes, they consider every patient as a personal journey of discovery, or whatever. And the outcomes cited above are only minimally relevant, certainly not to outcomes. We also know there is no consistency between the services, everything is basically ad hoc, the clinics make their own choices and even "personalize", whatever that means, everything for every patient. There literally cannot be any reliable data given that.

So did the services lie in response to FOI requests when asked to provide them for the paper that evaluated their service evaluation? Did they keep this data secret and lie about not having them? Where does this data otherwise come from? And who lied and for what purpose?

This late correction is really bizarre. Looks like some legal CYA.

 

Presumably ethical approval is distinct from whether there are methodological issues using pre-acquired data from a service evaluation in a research study claiming in its title to be prospective?

 

It was one of the numerous papers where Crawley 'reused' the same REC number (07/Q2006/48)

see:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/david...how-to-avoid-ethical-review.6653/#post-121341