Protocol Effects of the Qigong Tuina therapy on patients with Chronic fatigue syndrome: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 2025 Yao et al

Abstract

Background
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a chronic disease characterized by fatigue, complex symptoms and long duration. It incurs significant economic costs every year. Qigong Tuina therapy (QTT), a traditional Chinese therapy, is skilled in the treatment of fatigue. The objective of this study is to observe the effectiveness of QTT in treating patients with CFS.

Methods
A randomized controlled trial will recruit 128 patients with CFS. The patients will be allocated randomly in a 1:1 ratio to either the QTT group or the cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) group. The interventions for both groups will be carried out once per week for 8 weeks. Then a 4 weeks follow-up will be conducted for all patients after the intervention. The primary outcome will be the changes in the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20). Secondary outcomes will be measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The data will be analyzed at the baseline, 4 weeks into the intervention, at the end of the intervention, and 4 weeks after the intervention. The safety of interventions will be assessed after each treatment session.

Discussion
The trial aims to establish whether QTT is not inferior to CBT for CFS patients. This study provides vital information for an alternative and complementary therapy aimed at patients afflicted with CFS.

Open access

 

Nice way to show the ineffectivity of CBT, but will it be interpreted that way?

 

CBT is a common intervention for CFS [7]. It can identify and adjust maladaptive behaviours and beliefs, leading to a decrease in symptom severity and improvement of functional capacity. However, involving professional counselors in the process proves to be challenging and expensive, making CBT a difficult approach to promote.

Yeah, that’s the challenge with CBT..

 

At least they make an effort to blind what can be blinded.

I highly doubt they will give a neutral assessment of the risks..

So they are aware of NICE, yet they chose CBT that isn’t recommended? Those are some nice cherries..

On CBT:

 

No mentions of the threshold for clinical significant changes in the methods section.

It shows..

 

Sharpe M. Cognitive behavior therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: efficacy and implications. Am J Med. 1998;105(3, Supplement 1):104S–109S.

Publishing the protocol almost a year after the study started. Good job!

 

So far the formula has been that when two useless things are found to be equally ineffective, they are asserted to be equally effective. Which is true, 0=0.

Given the corner the industry have painted themselves into, I'd assume this will go this way again. After all, in systematic reviews they simply get combined under some vague label like "behavioral interventions". No one seems to care much about actual efficacy, an we are long past the point after which medicine has accepted alternative medicine pseudoscience that it doesn't matter anymore, GET may as well be just as effective as erotic fingerpainting for all that any of this matter.

 

This is the summary of week 6-8, after the gaslighting. Nothing about reduced energy usage, unless that’s what they mean by ‘cognitive rest’.

«The treatment involved progressive exposure therapy, graded activity programs, and addressed the severity and environmental specificity of cognitive fatigue, as well as its effects and outcomes. Other techniques used were cognitive rest, exercise to alleviate stress, and dietary adjustments to relieve fatigue.»

Also, notice the past tense. It seems like the protocol was written after the trial.