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

Barry said:
View attachment 7696
What a strange comment. "Truly objective outcomes don't exist..."
Click to expand...

Hope this isn't off topic but my recent experience definitely refutes this. I know we all know already it was nonsense from the outset!

Over the last month or so there has been a definite upswing in my health, (which weirdly is following a similar time frame to my previous milder illness). As before it feels like something has 'switched off'. I'm nowhere near active and healthy but feel much better than before. My step counter that I wear all the time has shown a clear change to support this. The orange columns are days when I managed >1000 steps. They were rare events previously but as you can see the most recent 4 weeks show a massive change. These are the only sorts of results that can be trusted.

The days when I barely did any steps are when my bracelet was charging or I forgot to put it back on.
 

Attachments

  • _20190716_122415.JPG
    _20190716_122415.JPG
    53.5 KB · Views: 15
  • _20190716_122440.JPG
    _20190716_122440.JPG
    53.3 KB · Views: 16
Lucibee said:
And here's the MS tweet @rvallee :

View attachment 7692
Click to expand...
upload_2021-3-28_11-41-14.png

What did MS mean here when he said "even though pacing was more credible" than GET.

This one tweet is so full of holes.

"Actigraphy was dropped to reduce patient burden". I bet they would have paid scant heed to patient burden if actigraphy had been likely to give the outcomes they hoped for.

"Truly objective outcomes don't exist" is just a deflection from the fact that outcomes do exist that are far, far more objective than the subjective ones they used. Truly eternal building materials don't exist, but that doesn't mean bricks and mortar aren't far more longer lasting than papier mache and wishful thinking.

"The key finding is DIFFERENCE between arms" is only going to be true if you've controlled for confounding factors between those arms, let alone deliberately introduced confounding factors, and deliberately not controlled for them! e.g. Telling CBT and GET participants how fantastically successful their treatment was going to be for them, and ensuring outcomes were based on their subjective impressions of their treatment's effectiveness.

How many flaws can you fit into a single tweet!

I know this is all old hat now and has been covered many times before, but still can't help picking over this stuff now and again.

Edit: Minor edits for clarity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom