Tom Kindlon
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I finally got around to collating the survey data in my 2011 paper that the draft IQWIG report (in Germany) refers to.
This could be used in 2 ways.
People could refer to it in their own submissions
and/or
I would be willing to write a short comment if I knew there was somebody who could translate it into German for me (and ideally could help me do the format they wanted for a submission)

Hopefully there are no significant errors. As I highlighted in the original, sometimes I was working from percentages so there could be some small variations in terms of figures not adding up exactly to totals.
The Excel file is available here in case anyone wants to see and/or check the details
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mpafhotjbzhcynn/Kindlon 2011 Table2 updated with no change and improvement data.xlsx?dl=0
This image file is also available here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/33j7zqkxn5yc8to/Kindlon 2011 Table2 updated with no change and improvement data.PNG?dl=0
I have attached the original paper. Unfortunately there was no real way to do a systematic review of all survey data.
----
Some of the data was not relevant to my paper so wasn't included in the paper so I had to look back at the original sources.
I came across one error in the data I presented in my original paper.
This data wasn't particularly relevant for what I concentrated on in my 2011 paper, which was the rate of harms.
But it does become relevant when one starts calculating the rates of improvement. I gave higher figures for the rate of improvement for CBT than the survey data actually reported.
M.E. Association [28]
2010
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (n=997):
A lot worse: 7.9% (79)
Somewhat worse: 11.6% (116)
No change: 54.6% (544)
Improved: 27.0% (269)
Improved: 23.1% (230)
Greatly improved: 11.6% (116)
Greatly improved: 2.3% (23)
This could be used in 2 ways.
People could refer to it in their own submissions
and/or
I would be willing to write a short comment if I knew there was somebody who could translate it into German for me (and ideally could help me do the format they wanted for a submission)

Hopefully there are no significant errors. As I highlighted in the original, sometimes I was working from percentages so there could be some small variations in terms of figures not adding up exactly to totals.
The Excel file is available here in case anyone wants to see and/or check the details
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mpafhotjbzhcynn/Kindlon 2011 Table2 updated with no change and improvement data.xlsx?dl=0
This image file is also available here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/33j7zqkxn5yc8to/Kindlon 2011 Table2 updated with no change and improvement data.PNG?dl=0
I have attached the original paper. Unfortunately there was no real way to do a systematic review of all survey data.
----
Some of the data was not relevant to my paper so wasn't included in the paper so I had to look back at the original sources.
I came across one error in the data I presented in my original paper.
This data wasn't particularly relevant for what I concentrated on in my 2011 paper, which was the rate of harms.
But it does become relevant when one starts calculating the rates of improvement. I gave higher figures for the rate of improvement for CBT than the survey data actually reported.
M.E. Association [28]
2010
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (n=997):
A lot worse: 7.9% (79)
Somewhat worse: 11.6% (116)
No change: 54.6% (544)
Improved: 23.1% (230)
Greatly improved: 11.6% (116)
Greatly improved: 2.3% (23)
Attachments
Last edited: