Investigating the relationship between physical activity and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Franklin, 2021

[Trish]

https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/180_09_030504/wal10613_fm.pdf

I'm not sure anything can be concluded about GET from the Wallman study for two reasons. Diagnostic criteria Fukuda, and self selecting sample via notices in medical surgeries and newspaper ads. I suspect anyone with PEM would have not applied to participate in a GET study.

 

[Hutan]

So many reasons why the Laren et al review is flawed

 

[Trish]

I have started a thread about the Wallman study:

Randomised controlled trial of graded exercise in chronic fatigue syndrome, 2004, Wallman et al

 

[ME/CFS Skeptic]

Or was the difference after netting out results achieved by controls?

I believe it was the difference with controls expressed as a percentage of the baseline value.

 

[ME/CFS Skeptic]

So many reasons why the Laren et al review is flawed

It's a strange situation because we don't know what the correct data is. if I understand correctly, Wallman et al. gave the raw data to Larun and colleagues but no longer have it themselves. So we don't know if the original Wallman publication is right or Larun et al. or what explains the difference. Franklin tried to contact Larun et al. but they did not respond.

 

[Sean]

The thesis includes a review of exercise trials which has the following passage:

So the PhD student believed that all trials were unblinded with subjective outcomes and should therefore be high risk of bias. But his colleagues convinced him that there was no high risk of bias because it were the patients themselves who filled in the questionnaires not an observer.

Sounds like a bad argument to me.

That is how they win. They can't meet robust methodological standards, the ones they demand of non-psychosomatic research, so they simply lower them until they can.

Et voila! Success!

It really is that appallingly bad.

 

[NelliePledge]

It's a strange situation because we don't know what the correct data is. if I understand correctly, Wallman et al. gave the raw data to Larun and colleagues but no longer have it themselves. So we don't know if the original Wallman publication is right or Larun et al. or what explains the difference. Franklin tried to contact Larun et al. but they did not respond.

That seems weird. If it was my data I wouldn’t just have one copy how 20th century. Plus if I had given my only copy to someone else I wouldn’t let it drop if they didn’t reply to my emails, other forms of communication exist.