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

CORRESPONDENCE The PACE trial of treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome: a response to WILSHIRE et al (2019) Sharpe, Goldsmith & Chalder

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Cheshire, Mar 15, 2019.

  1. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,479
    Location:
    UK
    I'm not sure if they planned it but it is the correct handling of having the multiple things they were testing for. I suspect they hadn't understood or thought through the implications when they wrote the protocol.
     
  2. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    Buggered if I'm reading it, but I'd be happy to make a blind bet that it's another gift from Michael Sharpe. Not many of the other PACE authors put their name to it.
     
    MEMarge, Lidia, pteropus and 6 others like this.
  3. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,274
    Location:
    London, UK
    I think this is revealing:
    I am aware of the importance of this debate, in the general field of psychology, and I believe that, rather than facing as a reviewer the content itself, the paper deserves publication as a part of the ongoing discussion. Therefore, I will not enter into the merit of the discussion (who I think is right on a certain raised point), as it seems that, from a certain perspective, a sort of post-publication peer review process is ongoing.

    It appears that this letter (it is under correspondence so I don't think it counts as an article) was only subject to one referee's report and this referee made a point of not commenting on the quality of the arguments.

    The initial justification for this is fair. However, the reality is that no referee is going to make this strange disclaimer if he or she thinks the arguments provided, even on a cursory reading, are reasonably sound. There would no need to opt out if the letter's content was fairly argued.

    The reviewer's second justification (note that there is a redundancy of explanations here) looks weak and probably illegitimate. The impression is given that the reviewer does not like the idea of post-publication peer review - perhaps because he would not like people to pick holes in his published papers.

    So the unconscious message here seems to be that the reviewer felt distinctly uncomfortable about giving the letter a straightforward OK - as in 'well argued reply, but one or two bits of text need some tidying'. And so he is saying 'between the lines' that he does not see why he should get stick from the authors and their friends for being critical so is going to opt out of any comment.

    That is about as damning a review of a letter as you can get in the circumstances.
     
    MEMarge, Hutan, Lidia and 30 others like this.
  4. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    Nothing spells being silenced like getting a PR puff piece promoted by international news organisations while also publishing yet another research paper on the field he alleges to have "quit".

    I'd love to one day be as silenced as Michael Sharpe, what with his multimillion dollar research funding and his research being enacted in national clinical guidelines, or dear old Simon, whose career is basically non-existent, only being in charge of a full review of mental health, a knight and commingling with the royals.

    That's some awful silence. The poor dears. Can't someone harm millions of people without being criticized for it? Oh, the humanity.
     
  5. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm thinking more of another Monty Python:

    [​IMG]
     
    MEMarge, Simone, Lidia and 5 others like this.
  6. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    I believe this is the method formally known as jazz hands.

    Aka "it's true because it benefits me".
     
    Simone, andypants and NelliePledge like this.
  7. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    While also admitting that they do not know what recovery means or how to define it. But this changes nothing to their assertions that participants met a "strict criterion" for recovery. Also no bias in responses because. Just that, because.

    And if you don't like that explanation, they have a dozen more if you prefer. One of those involves smoke bombs while another, somehow, requires someone to make horsey-gallopey noises with a coconut while delivering it or it just doesn't quite have the same impact.

    Excuses, excuses for saaale!
     
  8. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    Some people say ME is the same as CFS. Those "some people" being themselves and bona fide members of their mutual admiration society. Hmmm...

    How to invent a controversy 101: make stuff up, point to made-up stuff as contrarian opinion justifying its controversial nature, spin it all around.

    Yeah, well, some people say I deserve $1M in my bank account. It may be controversial but payment is nonetheless expected promptly.
     
  9. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    Now that is a technique penis enlargement treatments would love to be able to get away with.

    "Our trial has reported that 93% of our participants now self-report as having a gigantic penis that feels so much more heavy and powerful. Post-hoc changes to size categorization were deemed sensible because we prefered the results they gave us. We don't really know what gigantic means but we like it so we consider it a strict criterion for penile gigantization. By the way, did you know we are top researchers in the field? Top. Researchers."
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
    Lidia, Pechius, Graham and 7 others like this.
  10. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    Sounds like it should be a response to the reanalysis paper itself, not an entirely new paper. Especially if the reviewer deems it to be an opinion and doesn't even want to attempt to review it.

    Must be nice to be able to publish an op-ed as a research paper that looks like it's been peer-reviewed but actually hasn't. It's very bad for science and medicine but whatever, apparently the rules don't matter to those guys.
     
    MEMarge and Peter Trewhitt like this.
  11. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,274
    Location:
    London, UK
    It is under correspondence so I presume this is classed as a letter.
     
  12. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    I'm not sure that anything is valid for the CFQ tbh!
     
    MEMarge, Hutan, Barry and 3 others like this.
  13. Three Chord Monty

    Three Chord Monty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    208
  14. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    I find it interesting that they seem to be doubling down on trying to "disappear" ME again. I note that in their citing of the Reuters article (Special Report) they refer to CFS and not ME (although the article itself uses the term CFS/ME throughout), and Sharpe has already made it clear that he thinks CFS and ME are different things, although he's never properly explained what he means by that.

    In this letter too, that theme seems strong:
    The emphasis here seems to be that it is important to find effective treatments for CFS (and not ME or even CFS/ME), as far as they are concerned.
     
    MEMarge, Cinders66, Sean and 13 others like this.
  15. Three Chord Monty

    Three Chord Monty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    208
    https://twitter.com/user/status/989016534508101632


    https://twitter.com/user/status/1009768534350663680


    https://twitter.com/user/status/1009714668124897281
     
    MEMarge, Simone, Chezboo and 8 others like this.
  16. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    According to the PACE authors, bias in subjective outcomes was not really a problem.


    Presumably they are referring to the scales used, the Clinical Global Impression Scale, the SF-36 physical function scale, the Chalder Fatigue Scale and some others.

    They appear to be suggesting that scales like the SF-36 with specific questions (as opposed to the CGI with vague ratings) are unaffected by bias, which is obviously complete nonsense.

    They also suggest that any bias had likely disappeared at the time the patients filled out the questionnaires. This is news to me, I was not aware that there was a delay. They say the delay was up to six months, but that raises the question of how long the average delay was, and whether there was a relationship between worse outcomes and greater delay. Anyway, the claim is essentially that in ME/CFS, biased self-reporting is only a short term problem. While it's true that placebo effects wear off (see long term follow up), I don't think one can reasonably be sure that whatever delay there ultimately was would eliminate bias.

    It is interesting to contrast the open-label with the double blinded Rituximab trial. We have been told there was no difference between the groups in the double-blinded trial. Yet in the open label trial one can see what looks like long sustained responses. That's most likely entirely or almost entirely due to biased reporting. There is no real effect.

    journal.pone.0129898.g002.PNG

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129898
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
    Hutan, Simone, Sean and 12 others like this.
  17. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,274
    Location:
    London, UK
    This is a really useful comparison. I had forgotten that there was an open label rituximab study. The phase 2 blinded study gives very wobbly curves and its 'positive' result was post hoc anyway so it does not help comparing the two blinded studies. But comparing the unblinded results with the phase 3 gives a very nice indication of the potential for a long term 'placebo' (in the broad sense) effect.
     
    Simone, Sean, TrixieStix and 11 others like this.
  18. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    I'm not sure what to say about this argument, except I can't believe they are writing this.

    To their credit, they did try to control for some non-specific effects related to the presence of a therapist by turning pacing into a therapist assisted treatment (APT). Contact time was also matched I believe except for the control group that had much less contact time and was therefore inadequate. Where it all went wrong is that CBT and GET were presented as highly effective and that recovery was possible. There's also the issue that CBT and GET intentionally try to change how patients see their symptoms. Therapists were likely to be people with professional investment in CBT and GET. So in the end the comparison is not fair and I don't see what the authors could have done to make it fair. The right thing would have been not to do this sort of trial, or use objective outcomes measures.
     
    Hutan, Simone, Sean and 11 others like this.
  19. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,350
    You would understand reviewer code better than I would, but I read that differently. I read it as an endorsement of the discussion, that he is saying the debate about the trial is providing a necessary and interesting review of the PACE papers and there's really no need for him to say anything more.
     
    Hutan, Lidia, ladycatlover and 5 others like this.
  20. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
    "[Use of CBT/GET] they imply that CFS or ME is psychiatric or psychological in nature"

    I know others have pointed out the many reasons why this is not the argument, but while doing a transcript of Trudie Chalders recent lecture (long way off finished), right at the beginning she says
    as opposed to 'based on the idea' that it is a psychological one?

    (nothing we didn't know already I know but again shows how they twist things to obscure the truth).
     
    MEMarge, Hutan, Sean and 13 others like this.

Share This Page