Esther Crawley (2019) Physical activity patterns among children and adolescents with mild-to-moderate CFS / ME [baseline accelerometer MAGENTA data]

Sean said:
In which case they were unlikely to be deconditioned, thus removing one of the central pillars of the psycho-behavioural model.
Click to expand...
More specifically it literally contradicts the very model used in PACE for the GET arm. They contradict their own words. Not someone else's words or general principles but the very hypothesis they presented and claimed to be testing. They say it plainly that it's BS, merely a convenient lie.

That's really something that should matter and the fact that it doesn't, even when it's pointed out, is ridiculous.
 
upload_2019-6-28_21-7-26.png
What a strange comment. "Truly objective outcomes don't exist. The key finding is DIFFERENCE between arms". Seems like a curve ball. Sentence 2 is in no way a corollary from sentence 1, completely unrelated in fact.

And as for "that is how the illness is defined" ... well only because it is the BPS crew that have defined it that way, largely it seems because it fits with the outcomes they prefer to use.
 
The key finding is DIFFERENCE between arms".
Click to expand...
From the PACE long-term follow-up paper:

"There was little evidence of differences in outcomes between the randomised treatment groups at long-term follow-up"

Yet the very next sentence is:

"The beneficial effects of CBT and GET seen at 1 year were maintained at long-term follow-up..."

Sharpe wants to have his cake and eat it too.
 
Last edited:
Barry said:
View attachment 7696
What a strange comment. "Truly objective outcomes don't exist. The key finding is DIFFERENCE between arms". Seems like a curve ball. Sentence 2 is in no way a corollary from sentence 1, completely unrelated in fact.
Click to expand...

He's suggesting that the 'pacing' arm was an active control group that magically controlled all of the possible biases, despite lack of blinding. He also hypothesises that patients had a more positive view of 'pacing' compared to CBT or GET that would translate into greater bias. Of course we know that the underlying bias in the 'pacing' arm over the course of the trial was in fact the opposite of this hypothesis - patients were made more aware of the fact that they were not improving since their activity patterns, symptoms etc were recorded and did not show signs of improvement. Secondly, there are participation biases - patients who have negatively made up their mind about CBT or GET are in no way going to participate in a trial of these therapies.
 
Snow Leopard said:
He's suggesting that the 'pacing' arm was an active control group that magically controlled all of the possible biases
Click to expand...
Yes, I fully understand the principle of control arms and measuring differences, so that common mode effects get cancelled out. And that the PACE notion of control was flawed, to the point they stopped calling it a controlled trial. I was really just observing that MS seemed to be suggesting that because they were measuring differences, then it was all OK, no matter what they were actually measuring. It's the Crap In, Crap Out principle, but they never seem to realise it.
 
Social media summary:

The first results of the MAGENTA trial have been published; the trail that aims to test graded exercise therapy and activity management in children with ME/CFS. The results are baseline data about the physical activity pattern of participants.

I’ve submitted a rapid response with two questions.

1) The authors wrote that no ‘boom-bust’ activity pattern emerged from the data. Yet in the protocol, treatments explicitly state they aim to change the boom-bust pattern of participants. Does that mean patients were instructed to correct illness behavior they did not display?

2) The data also showed that 9,4% of participants met government recommended levels for physical activity. Approximately half the healthy population does not meet this target. One of the interventions in the MAGENTA trial aims for a gradual increase in physical activity. Does this mean that the 9,4% were instructed to push their physical activity to even higher levels?

I’m interested in reading the authors’ answer to these questions. I hope they will respond.
 
Michiel Tack said:
The authors wrote that no ‘boom-bust’ activity pattern emerged from the data.
Click to expand...

The whole "boom-bust" thing intrigues me... so I tried to track it back through the papers (as I guess you did too, Michiel), that Solomon-Moore et al cited. And promptly fell down another rabbit hole...

Stulemeijer et al.'s study of "passive" and "active" patients seems very light on detail about how their passive and active patients were defined. The refer to Prins et al.'s 2001 Lancet study, but Prins used three different categories: generally passive (90% or more beneath the reference score), moderately active, and generally active (90% or more above the reference score). They cite van de Werf's actigraphy study. This provides a bit more clarification: "pervasively passive patients had to be less active compared to other CFS patients for at least 90% of the total observation period. Subsequently, pervasively passive patients were defined as those subjects whose average daily physical activity scores stayed below the reference score in at least 11 of the 12 assessment days." Presumably the reference score in Stulemeijer and Prins is the same one determined by van de Werf?

Stulemeijer also state: "Adolescents with a relatively active physical activity pattern alternate between periods of activity and periods of rest." citing Bliejenberg's chapter on CBT in Jason's "Handbook on CFS". This book contains pretty much the same statement, but cites FITNET as the reference.

Why do they have to make it all so opaque? All this information comes from the same research group. They could just provide a single reference for these data.

eta: Another quote from van der Werf: "Compared to healthy controls, no indication was found that the CFS patients as a group were characterised by a high number of large day-to-day fluctuations in activity. However, this finding does not exclude that there are individuals who have such a pattern."

eta2: I'm aware I'm merely repeating what Michiel has already said - I'm just trying to make sense of it all in my own little way!
 
Last edited:
Lucibee said:
Why do they have to make it all so opaque? All this information comes from the same research group. They could just provide a single reference for these data.
Click to expand...
They go into the active versus passive group in this publication: Bazelmans E, Prins J, Bleijenberg G. Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Relatively Active and for Passive Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients. Cogn Behav Pract. 2006;13(2):157-166.

I think it is so opaque because it doesn't make sense. The questions I've asked could have applied to the group of Bleijenberg and Knoop as well, so many years back. The objective actigraphy data they collected (van der Werf et al. 2000) also showed little indication of a boom-bust pattern and a substantial proportion of participants had normal levels of physical activity. That strongly speaks against their cognitive-behavioral theory of CFS.
 
Michiel Tack said:
They go into the active versus passive group in this publication: Bazelmans E, Prins J, Bleijenberg G. Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Relatively Active and for Passive Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients. Cogn Behav Pract. 2006;13(2):157-166.

I think it is so opaque because it doesn't make sense. The questions I've asked could have applied to the group of Bleijenberg and Knoop as well, so many years back. The objective actigraphy data they collected (van der Werf et al. 2000) also showed little indication of a boom-bust pattern and a substantial proportion of participants had normal levels of physical activity. That strongly speaks against their cognitive-behavioral theory of CFS.
Click to expand...
Whenever did objective evidence get in the way of a well reinforced poorly defined construct....particularly one with an asymmetric power balance and a sprinkling of messiah complex
 
Amw66 said:
a sprinkling of messiah complex
Click to expand...
'I always think that if I was involved in a car crash, and my femoral artery
was gushing blood – sorry, that’s a doctor thing– and I knew I only had five minutes left, I
would hope I’d say “At least I made a difference to kids with chronic fatigue”.’
Click to expand...
Esther Crawley
https://www.s4me.info/threads/esther-crawley-what-drives-her-plus-quotes.1139/

eta: this quote was from a while ago.........maybe now she'd just look at her leg and say 'stop'(?)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom