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

David Tuller: Trial By Error: Professor Sharpe’s Pre-Hearing Briefing for Monaghan

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS news' started by Andy, Jul 2, 2018.

  1. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    I'll try again... PACE_PFvsWT_GET.gif
     
    Inara, Webdog, Sean and 3 others like this.
  2. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    I didn't understand this at all. Why make things up?
     
  3. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    There is definitely a correlation - but what happens is that the intervention (+ regression to the mean) just shifts everything [well, not everything, but you know what I mean] to the right. There's also a big hole where I suspect the missing data goes.
     
    MEMarge, Sean, Esther12 and 4 others like this.
  4. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    I prefer the gif because it loops back to the beginning. With YouTube video, you lose that.
     
    Esther12, adambeyoncelowe and Andy like this.
  5. Woolie

    Woolie Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,918
    The trouble is, you will probably get a significant simple correlation, because overall, the more severely affected people will tend to rate themselves more severely (on the physical function and Chalder fatigue measures) and will also tend to have have more trouble with the 6MWT.

    Could we get around this problem this way? I'm thinking out loud really.

    1. Using the SMC arm, calculate the regression equation that expresses the relation between each outcome measure at the start of the trial and the corresponding outcome measure at 52 weeks.

    2. Using this equation, express each person's 52-week score on your chosen outcome measure as a residual based on the equation that you just calculated. These new scores will express the degree of change over the course of the trial, relative to what you'd expect for that person's level of severity if there were no therapy. A positive residual would indicate greater change than expected, and a negative residual would indicate less change than expected. The residual scores have overall severity factored out, which will solve a lot of problems.

    3. See whether residual scores for your subjective outcome measure(s) correlate with those for your objective measures. Are the correlations tighter for some trial arms than others?

    4. There seems to be a fourth step needed to test statistically whether trial arm significantly modulates the correlations you get from step 3. I'm not sure about the maths of this one.
     
  6. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    I stand corrected by my honorable friend.
     
    MEMarge, Lisa108, Sarah and 4 others like this.
  7. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2018
    inox, Inara, rvallee and 4 others like this.
  8. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,731
    I was too, but thought I might seem like a stickler.
     
    Inara, MEMarge, Indigophoton and 2 others like this.
  9. Sarah

    Sarah Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,494
    :laugh: Nonetheless, I was poaching your logic TiredSam.
     
    TiredSam likes this.
  10. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    I am happy to unashamedly stickle. Especially when Michael Sharpe constructs a sentence that I could use to teach my beginners with:

    There is / there are, much and many, has and have, singular / plural, present perfect - all the classic mistakes Germans make when they start learning English. If I didn't know better I'd suspect ... oh no, better steer well clear of Godwin's Law.
     
    Inara, hinterland, janice and 13 others like this.
  11. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    But asking patients to rate their ability to do things isn't as reliable as actually measuring how well they can do things. Because patients are susceptible to wishful thinking or may not like to admit how ill they are.

    I not surprised that in picture posted earlier, physical function seems to increase more over time than walking distance. Walking distance better reflects real physical function. Unfortunately it's surely also more affected by missing data. And to account for PEM it would have to be several walking distance tests over a few days (or until the patient refuses).
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2018
    Inara, Skycloud, janice and 7 others like this.
  12. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,870
    Location:
    UK
    It doesn't seem like a good proxy to me. If you look at the graph at the start, for example:
    PF 15 and PF 40 seems to have the same range of values on 6MWT from 150 to 500 metres, with a fairly even spread over that range.
    I have no idea how anyone with such a low SF-36 PF score as 15 can walk 500 metres in 6 minutes.
    What this suggests to me is that, as @Graham showed in his splendid video, interpretation is everything with questionnaires, and easily shifted by persuasion.
     
    lycaena, Inara, Skycloud and 13 others like this.
  13. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    OK - they *thought* it was a good proxy. And yeah, is easily shifted by persuasion. I thought that's what I was trying to say. Brain not working today.

    [I've deleted the post]
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2018
    Inara, MEMarge, Trish and 1 other person like this.
  14. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,674
    Location:
    UK
    500m is about a third of a mile? So in 6 minutes that would equate to around a normal walking pace for a healthy person who isn't in any particular hurry. I agree it doesn't tally with an SF-36 of 15 where I would expect walking to be quite restricted, if possible, and significantly slower than a "normal" walking pace, again, if possible at all.

    There'd have to be a pot of gold, on a hover-sled, at the end, and a few hungry tigers behind me to get me to go that far in 6 minutes, and 98 times out of 50 I'd be lunch.
     
    Inara, Skycloud, MEMarge and 5 others like this.
  15. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,870
    Location:
    UK
    It's probably my brain that's not working, sorry.
     
  16. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    I'm defo having an "off" day. I'm talking rubbish. I get extremely frustrated when i can't understand stats any more. :(
     
    Inara, Hutan, Milo and 3 others like this.
  17. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,044
    Location:
    Australia
    So the red dots that vanish are the missing outcome data? Rather a lot of them.

    [EDIT: Yes, they are. Just seen the new thread of PACE graphs and gifs.]
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2018
    Inara, Hutan, MEMarge and 3 others like this.
  18. LightHurtsME

    LightHurtsME Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    122
    Location:
    UK
    No, you are not - I find that implies lack of attention to detail and disrespect in communication towards the audience - as if not bothering to re-read what the person has written before sending it off. Not how you would expect a professor at a world class university to communicate.

    Personally, when I receive e.g. commercial communication from a company with bad grammar/spelling, I just disregard the company. (Unless it is obvious they are foreign and did their best in English.)
     
    Inara, MEMarge, rvallee and 3 others like this.
  19. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    847
    The argument that GET is only harmful if carried out by the wrong person or in the wrong way goes back to the collaboration between the PACE doctors and AFME.

    Here's a link to a letter in the BMJ co-authored by Prof Sharpe and Sir Peter Spencer (who was then the new CEO of AFME) in 2007.

    https://www.bmj.com/content/335/7617/411

    They tried to explain away patient surveys in that way

    I'm sorry that I don't have a link to the whole paper
     
  20. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    Quite. Scientific writing is a thing - I have a friend who teaches courses on it. You would expect precision and accuracy to be second nature to Michael Sharpe if he was half the scientist he claims to be. It's also interesting that the briefing was not signed by the other PACE authors, just purportedly sent in their name. If any one of them had read it before it was sent, surely they'd have spotted such a howler and suggested he correct it.
     

Share This Page