1. Guest, the 'News In Brief' post for w/c 12th Nov can be read here.
    Dismiss Notice

Lancet Infectious Diseases: Editorial, "A proper place for retraction", 2017, mentions PACE in passing

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Andy, Jan 29, 2018.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    30,321
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    My bolding.
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(17)30458-9/fulltext

    Proof, if we needed it, that they still don't understand the criticisms of PACE.

    Highlighted in @Lucibee 's blog here - https://lucibee.wordpress.com/2017/08/27/a-case-for-retraction/#more-745
     
  2. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,104
    Likes Received:
    9,193
    Repeatedly using a dodgy methodology somehow transforms it into a reliable one?
     
    Daisy, Awol, Arnie Pye and 21 others like this.
  3. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    30,321
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    At a complete guess, I would say that they are assuming that different studies use different methodology. I mean, the various studies have different names, so they must have different methodologies, right??
     
    Awol, ahimsa, TiredSam and 15 others like this.
  4. MEMarge

    MEMarge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    3,673
    I don't really follow their meaning. If the conclusions are dodgy, something in the study process must have been dodgy....
    Or are they saying "conclusions are the issue" meaning patients (and researchers and informed clinicians) just don't like what they found out...

    Apologies I should really have read the article before rambling.
     
  5. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    30,321
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    This.
     
    Arnie Pye, MEMarge, Esther12 and 11 others like this.
  6. Russell Fleming

    Russell Fleming Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    906
    Lucy's letter in response was published in the Lancet in October 2017:

    A case for retraction?
    Lucy Bailey



    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(17)30527-3/fulltext
     
    Milo, Esther12, Woolie and 14 others like this.
  7. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    6,223
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    I was asked to submit my letter in order to "continue the debate". But so far, I can see no evidence of that debate continuing at all. It seems to have been stifled!
    This is why I am not a fan of journal Correspondence. It very rarely furthers debate, and in this day and age, it is way too slow.
     
    Snow Leopard, Awol, MEMarge and 16 others like this.
  8. Rick Sanchez

    Rick Sanchez Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    1,127
    Of course the conclusion is part of the issue

    You should never be able to conclude that a given treatment is effective when a study is as methodologically flawed as PACE.

    The Lancets nonchalant attitude towards flawed methodology is incredibly concerning.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2018
  9. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,391
    Likes Received:
    11,817
    So defending PACE indirectly. Nice strategy :emoji_face_palm:
     
  10. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    7,836
    Should not the Nice be capitalised?
     
  11. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,192
    Likes Received:
    21,083
    Yes, it seems to be such an easily stifled form of correspondence, that it's not really correspondence at all.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2018
  12. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,192
    Likes Received:
    21,083
    Yes, the conclusion is part of the problem, because the whole thing is built on sand ... bad methodology the lot.
     
  13. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,391
    Likes Received:
    11,817
    Indeed, but perhaps it should actually be all lower case :emoji_upside_down:
     
  14. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    6,223
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    How very dare you!
     
  15. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,391
    Likes Received:
    11,817
    Indeed, my next evil plan is to discredit alternative facts :emoji_smirk:
     
  16. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,192
    Likes Received:
    21,083
    Am I right in thinking @Lucibee that when you say ...
    ... you mean long the lines of:
    1. That correspondence corrections are far too weak, and delay-prone.
    2. That full retraction effectively removes all evidence from the formal record of a trial that was deeply flawed, a bit like sweeping history under the carpet? Akin maybe to allowing revisions in a legal document to have text removed, rather than struck through?
    3. That from '2' because the lessons learnt are themselves lost, it becomes easier for perpetrators to do it again?
    Sounds to me like retraction is still the right thing, but the nature of retraction that is wrong. Maybe retraction should not mean completely purging from the record, but being left in evidence - literally and obviously - that the publication has been retracted and why.
     
  17. large donner

    large donner Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    5,957
    If the conclusion don't match the data especially after the data had to be forcibly released by a judge in court......
     
  18. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,391
    Likes Received:
    11,817
    This reminds me of if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit :woot:
     
  19. Sbag

    Sbag Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    Or are they saying that they do see a problem but they see it with the conclusions/results - in that the numbers reported were hugely inflated.
     
  20. Luther Blissett

    Luther Blissett Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    12,352
    An application of my proposed Bayes' Alchemy in action again @Woolie ?

     

Share This Page