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

MAGENTA (Managed Activity Graded Exercise iN Teenagers and pre-Adolescents) - Esther Crawley

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Sly Saint, Jun 29, 2018.

  1. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,573
    Location:
    UK
    One of the biggest problems with Esther Crawleys work is that she never really says what her 'hypothesis' is. She just appears to think that her treatment works (most of the time), the kids are all happy and that's it.

    eta:
    with reference to my last comment:
    the real reason is it's what they do at her clinic
    "
    When can I increase my activity levels?
    When you have managed 2 weeks of the same activity daily, you can start to increase by 10% a week."
    http://www.ruh.nhs.uk/patients/serv...tric_cfs_me/documents/CFSEnergyManagement.pdf

    eta2: also don't forget Crawley was a key advisor for the 2007 NICE guidelines; I don't what the 'rules' re increasing activity %s for GET before that were(?).
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
    Inara, MEMarge, NelliePledge and 2 others like this.
  2. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    The authors are introducing a rule on how to interpret accelerometer data that can only increase, never decrease, apparent activity levels.

    It's possible that their assumption is valid. One would have to check how they justify this.

    It's also possible that "periods of sixty minutes or more with zero readings" might just be periods where the patient is sleeping during the day due to exhaustion. In my experience, periods where I attempted to be more active and walk every day or most days, resulted in much more daytime sleep. If the device is not highly sensitive or the patient simply doesn't move, then these daytime naps could be erroneously counted as no wear time. The kind of exhaustion that makes me sleep or nap during the day tends to be so profound that I don't even moving a limb or turn around in bed.

    Does this indicate that a patient could have received treatment for up to 3 weeks before the first measurement of activity levels are made? Both treatment arms are described as having an initial activity reduction component. If the patient reduces their activity as told, and only then the first measurement of activity levels is performed, it could lead to the illusion of improvement.

    This could easily happen if the patient, during the first contact with the service, receives both the accelerometer and the advice to reduce activity levels.

    Such subgrouping could also give an unscrupulous reeseacher more opportunities for spin and p-hacking. For example it's possible that light activity increases at 3 and 6 months, but that moderate and vigorous activity decrease. If the researcher only reported that light activity levels increased it would be misleading. What is wrong with just reporting accelerometer counts?

    I recall reading that people tend to temporarily modify their activity levels when they know that it's being recorded with accelerometers. So any measurements need to take this effect into account and be performed for long enough periods for this to not be a significant factor. Whether one week is enough needs to be checked.

    Edited for clarity.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2018
    Dolphin, Hutan, MEMarge and 4 others like this.
  3. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    Oh I missed the part where accelerometer outcomes were quietly dropped.

    Hopefully someone will get the data with FOI.
     
    Amw66, Dolphin, Hutan and 7 others like this.
  4. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,819
    Location:
    Australia
    @MEMarge The criticisms by an exercise physiologist is certainly interesting - it shows that the GET used is really just a psychological therapy as it is not designed properly to improve fitness or seemingly even make sense to an exercise physiologist in this case.
     
    Sid, MEMarge, adambeyoncelowe and 6 others like this.
  5. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    I might have missed this in the exchanges. The trial registration lists the outcomes for both the feasibility study and the full trial. Is there a feasibility study protocol? Did they specify before doing the feasibility study what the full trial outcomes would be if it got extended, or did they just select them after gathering the data from the feasibility trial?
     
    Dolphin, Barry, Daisymay and 5 others like this.
  6. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    Nothing in the BMJ Open version of the trial protocol suggesting that they had pre-selected primary and secondary outcomes. They just listed all the measures they would take.
     
    Dolphin, Barry, Daisymay and 3 others like this.
  7. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    UK
    The reviewers are pointing out that the protocol does not actually define what treatment is being provided. Yet the trial seemed to have started recruiting in 2015 and these reviews are in 2016 so they are basically operating for some of the time on a protocol that the reviews were saying didn't define the treatment. Its also confusing as to whether the trial started in 2013 or 2015.
     
    adambeyoncelowe, Hutan, Barry and 3 others like this.
  8. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    UK
    I think that is one of the reasons to have them for the whole period of the trial. Even if they use slightly less accurate devices. Something like a fitbit is small (much smaller than a matchbox) and some people seem to wear them all the time.
     
  9. Arnie Pye

    Arnie Pye Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,046
    Location:
    UK
  10. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    UK
    They appear to have incorporated these changes in when they made it a full trial in 2017. Including the use of 100 patients from the feasibility study. So it looks like they were added in March 2017 but they are vague.

    As far as I can tell the published trial protocol is for the feasibility study and not the full trial and it says:

    So the published trial protocol doesn't define outcomes for the full trial. But does define data collected in the feasibility study. It also says the intent is to use the feasibility data to adapt the design yet includes those from the feasibility study in the outcomes.
     
    adambeyoncelowe and Trish like this.
  11. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    UK
    In a letter to the ethics committee who approved Magenta
    http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/ccah/cfsme/study-docs/Ethics Letter 31.10.16.pdf

    Crawley writes:
    Yet the cochrane review says:
    and

    So although Crawley makes claims to the ethics committee that Cochrane 'looked carefully at harm and side effects in 1518 patients' they actually looked at 160 (- drop outs) patients from the PACE trial in order to assess safety.
     
    Sly Saint, andypants, Dolphin and 4 others like this.
  12. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    UK

    In terms of ethics permission in the response from the ethics committee on 29 January 2016 for an unpublished amendment request from 18th Nov 2015
    http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-libr... Amendment 1. 18112015 Letter of Approval.pdf

    They ethics committee state:
    This was reviewed and approved by a subcommittee of two people:
    So the committee had great expertise in trial design and methodology!
     
  13. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    UK
    One of the committee has a page here:
    https://www.alignbodyclinic.co.uk/jay-ruddock

    He doesn't appear to have research experience beyond being involved in a systematic review in 2016. But he is helping train people for ethics committees which I find worrying and he is known for his 'magic' touch.
     
    adambeyoncelowe, MEMarge and Trish like this.
  14. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    And what exactly does "starting the trial" actually mean? Just getting on with the bureaucracy? Or actually beginning to run it operationally?
     
    MEMarge and adambeyoncelowe like this.
  15. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    It would normally mean the start of recruitment for the trial, I think--just like a criminal trial formally begins on the date jury selection starts, at least in U.S.
     
    MEMarge, Webdog, Esther12 and 2 others like this.
  16. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,182
    Right--"substantial amendments" are officially only subject to a vote by a subcommittee of at least two.
     
    MEMarge, Esther12, Skycloud and 2 others like this.
  17. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    UK
    I suspect they are well aware of this and see it as a way of getting easy approval.

    It is concerning that people who clearly don't know what they are doing are making such big approvals. In this case basically for a new trial but including results from people in a different trial.
     
    Hutan, andypants, ukxmrv and 7 others like this.
  18. Beckster

    Beckster New Member

    Messages:
    3
    My daughter was/is on the Activity Management arm, activities like bathroom visits, help getting dressed, eating are all high energy red activities. Once they achieved a certain amount of red per day then they were offered GET.
    When completing our forms I actually wrote WC visit, putting on pj's etc, I doubt others did so not sure how results can be correct.
    One of our first 'specialist' meetings involved asking to see daughter walk despite her being severe and in a wheelchair. Original protocol says no one in a wheelchair can be on the study!
    I've requested results, have been assured they'll be sent via email.
     
    Inara, TiredSam, andypants and 14 others like this.
  19. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,573
    Location:
    UK
    Thanks a lot for posting.
    We don't often get a chance to hear from people who take part in these recent 'studies'.
    If there is anything you want to 'get off your chest' but not keen on posting on a public forum there is always the members only area which is a bit more (although not totally) 'private'.
     
    ukxmrv, andypants, MEMarge and 11 others like this.
  20. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,261
    I am slightly confused. I thought the oremise was to compare effectiveness between activity management and GET.
    Surely if on the Activity management arm GET should not have been introduced?
     
    Inara, Sean, rvallee and 4 others like this.

Share This Page