Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy targeting severe fatigue following COVID-19: results of a randomized controlled trial 2023, Kuut, Knoop et al

Chantal Rovers. One of the authors created a thread about the study. Here's her opening tweet:

"Doubted whether I would share our article on cognitive behavioral therapy in long COVID here, not because of fear of criticism, but because of the expected nasty reactions on the person."

 
Grigor said:
Chantal Rovers. One of the authors created a thread about the study. Here's her opening tweet:

"Doubted whether I would share our article on cognitive behavioral therapy in long COVID here, not because of fear of criticism, but because of the expected nasty reactions on the person."
Click to expand...
Can someone on Twitter ask Chantal why the SE's for the T1 and T2 timepoints are the same for CBT and CAU for each outcome? And how they dealt with missing data/why the SE's are titled 'Estimated SE'.

And why the actigraph measures planned in the protocol were not reported in the paper.
 
Hutan said:
Can someone on Twitter ask Chantal why the SE's for the T1 and T2 timepoints are the same for CBT and CAU for each outcome? And how they dealt with missing data/why the SE's are titled 'Estimated SE'.

And why the actigraph measures planned in the protocol were not reported in the paper.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling she won't be answering questions on Twitter, especially this sort of technical stuff. I think this might be better included in correspondence.
 
The PACE authors had the advantage of all being excellent second hand car salespersons.
I am not sure that this team is going to get very far trying to re-market a diesel Honda Prelude from 2004 to a post-Covid world.

Perhaps Dr Rovers should be a bit more concerned about criticism before putting out a study that fails to make the basic grade in clinical science.
 
Trish said:
Getting in first to characterise any criticisms of the research as personal attacks.
Click to expand...
If only people then observed to see whether what they blocked and deleted was actually critique…..


I haven’t read this but as Knoop involved I assume it centres on the delusion elucidated in the Heins eg al (2013) paper that it is some sort of ‘useful treatment’ to con people into saying they feel less fatigued by making them think they are ‘doing more objective activity’ when they actually aren’t (hence not actually feeling any less fatigued just being tricked tgat they should be expecting to feel more fatigued than they are).

How is that not disability bigotry almost as a definition if so? jolly up the silly old disabled to feel better that maybe they should feel as decrepit as they do by suggesting they are doing more than they have done … short term until they realise…. ‘Oh but you did all that showering last week so isn’t that expected’ erm I guess so… maybe that is one higher then etc.

How on Earth even pulling off that con would/should be allowed by bystanders for someone to translate that to ‘curing fatigue’ I don’t know - I mean when you think about it the whole ‘recovery’ claims from a bit of pacing by such therapies strikes me as verging into the realm of grandiosity: ‘we cured it’ is so far off from logical without the willingness being encouraged for others to think badly enough if patients tgat maybe they just needed to do a bit more moving and be distracted and they were fine underneath. So what are they really selling and to whom?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom