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

Graded exercise therapy for ME/CFS is not effective and unsafe. Re-analysis of a Cochrane review (2018) Health Psychology / Vink

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic news - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Cheshire, Oct 9, 2018.

  1. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,675
    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2055102918805187
     
    sb4, Lidia, Lucibee and 56 others like this.
  2. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,044
    Location:
    Australia
  3. Grigor

    Grigor Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    540
    So good!! Simply amazing!
     
  4. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,637
    So heartening to read this clear and concise debunking of the Cochrane GET review.
     
    MEMarge, inox, Dolphin and 18 others like this.
  5. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,871
    Location:
    UK
    I haven't had time to read it all, but I can see it is a thorough analysis of why the Cochrane review is unsound. Excellent work.

    The paper goes through a list of major flaws, such as subjective outcome measures in unblinded trials, too broad criteria, inadequate reporting of harms, and exclusion of a study that showed CBT/GET didn't work. Then it takes each of the trials included in Cochrane and explains the problems with them. Then it reviews evidence of harms, and finally the outcomes from objective measures.
     
  6. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    I like this part. How to make harms disappear:

    Yes, the belief that exercise can cause or has caused a relapse is viewed as unhelpful illness belief in the BPS framework.
     
    sb4, MEMarge, Dolphin and 29 others like this.
  7. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    It also potentially guilts participants into not kicking up a fuss, and to feel it must be their fault. As good a way as any to magic away reporting of harms.
     
  8. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    I think in due time this may be understood as a variant of the Milgram experiment, where people in a context where they want to comply with authority may play along with instructions that end up greatly harming them, even voicing undeserved praise about being helped while being actively harmed by professionals who should definitely know better.

    Gaslighting is a seriously underappreciated concept and it's a massive shame that it is accepted as a legitimate alternative to medicine just because it makes people's job easier and seems cheaper (even though it's not even close to be).

    The Cochrane review on ME will eventually be understood as an egregious case of low-quality trial laundering, bundling up a bunch of mediocre research and pretending it amounts to a level clinical significance just because it makes assertions that confirm people's biases. Unlike that it will hurt Cochrane's reputation, unfortunately. They seem to enjoy a status of near deification.

    No one involved is thinking much about the future, how this will all look with hindsight. Surely they know it's all bullshit and just don't care because it validates their beliefs that ME is a fake disease. After all, if no one suffered any consequences from all the fake research showing smoking is harmless and vaporising lead into the atmosphere is safe then the worst that will happen is they'll move on to the next bullshit that will pay them for being mediocre at their job.
     
    LadyBirb, MEMarge, Lidia and 28 others like this.
  9. Hell..hath..no..fury...

    Hell..hath..no..fury... Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,720
    Wow, amazing to read
     
  10. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    Nice one. Thanks to the authors.

    I expected it to draw more on the points made by Courtney and Kindlon in the comments section of the Cochrane review, but it's really quite different, focussing more on the problems with the studies included in the Cochrane review, so it works more as a companion piece to what has already been done than a summary of the problems with the Cochrane review.

    I've only got half way through so far, but already there were a lot of sensible points, and it is really good for someone to have attempted a critical look at all the included studies like this. Reading the paper made me realise what a sensible idea doing something like this was... it must have been a lot of work.

    I wondered if sometimes the fact that English is not the author's first language could have led to some slightly odd phrasing. eg:

    Surely it would be possible for some patient with MS to report no more fatigue than healthy controls? I think I see the point they're going for - that it would seem the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire can generate misleading results when those with a health condition have received a form of CBT which encourages 'positive' cognitions about fatigue, as illustrated by the seemingly implausible results from that fatigue study, but as it's written above it seems like a slightly strange argument.
     
  11. Roy S

    Roy S Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    459
    Location:
    Illinois, USA
  12. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,529
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Excellent. @Simone, is it too late for this paper to be taken into account in the Australian NHMRC ME/CFS Advisory committee's review?
     
  13. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
    "The Chalder Fatigue Scale is flawed."
    "First, it does not provide a comprehensive reflection of fatigue-related severity, symptomology, or functional disability in CFS (Haywood et al., 2011), as it was developed by mental health professionals, and many questions are geared towards depression and not CFS (Chalder et al., 1993).

    Second, the ceiling effect means that a maximum score at baseline cannot increase even if there is deterioration during the trial.

    As a consequence, for example, if a participant deteriorated during the trial on eight items and improved on three, the score should reflect a deterioration of five points. However, if they had scored the maximum at baseline, then since eight scores cannot get worse and three scores have improved, the Chalder Fatigue Scale would classify the participant, who had deteriorated by five points, as improved by three points."

    "Evidence on harms
    According to the review, only two studies reported on safety or adverse reactions and in the larger (White et al., 2011) there are questions about the definition used."

    "However, the claims that the interventions in White et al. (2011) are safe are based on an unrealistic definition of harms. Adverse events were considered serious when they involved death, hospital admission, increased severe and persistent disability, self harm, were life-threatening or required an intervention to prevent one of these (White et al., 2011). These are not harms normally complained of by patients."

    "The failure of most studies to report on safety or adverse reactions and the unrealistic definition used by White et al. (2011) mean that it is not possible to conclude GET is safe."

    :emoji_lollipop:

     
    MEMarge, Barry, inox and 17 others like this.
  14. Mark Vink

    Mark Vink Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    77
    Merged thread

    Abstract

    The analysis of the 2017 Cochrane review reveals flaws, which means that contrary to its findings, there is no evidence that graded exercise therapy is effective. Because of the failure to report harms adequately in the trials covered by the review, it cannot be said that graded exercise therapy is safe. The analysis of the objective outcomes in the trials provides sufficient evidence to conclude that graded exercise therapy is an ineffective treatment for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome.

    Full artikel published in Health Psychology Open:

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2055102918805187
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2018
  15. JemPD

    JemPD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,916
    Dolphin, Woolie, Barry and 7 others like this.
  16. JemPD

    JemPD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,916
    This is truly excellent. I not managed to read all of it yet but impressed with what i've seen. Many thanks to Vink & Vink-Niese
     
    Dolphin, Woolie, Barry and 10 others like this.
  17. Mark Vink

    Mark Vink Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    77
  18. arewenearlythereyet

    arewenearlythereyet Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,092
    Excellent ...read the whole lot in one go ...very compelling :thumbup:
     
    MEMarge, Dolphin, Barry and 13 others like this.
  19. Simone

    Simone Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    445
    Location:
    Australia
    Not too late, and it’s on my list to send it by the end of the week (been really crashed this week). The timing couldn’t be more perfect, actually. This is just what we need right now.
     
  20. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,529
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    That's terrific news @Simone. I think the outcome of the review will have a big impact, and not just in Australia. Very important work that you are doing.
     

Share This Page