1. The 'News in Brief' post for w/c 4th Nov can be read by clicking here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment is not effective for ME/CFS: A review of the FatiGo trial, 2018, Vink & Vink-Niese

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS Research' started by Andy, Aug 6, 2018.

Tags:
  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    7,868
    Likes Received:
    57,583
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Open access at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2055102918792648
     
  2. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,285
    Likes Received:
    27,136
    I was just thinking about this trial, so this paper should be a helpful reminder of it. Marked for tomorrow.
     
    Invisible Woman, Inara, Trish and 2 others like this.
  3. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,189
    Likes Received:
    7,018
    Location:
    Australia
    Who the fuck calls a trial "Fatigo" anyway? Clearly they don't like patients much.
     
  4. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    17,169
    Likes Received:
    90,819
    Location:
    UK
    I've just read the paper. It is excellent.

    Shows the FatiGo trial had all the same types of flaws as PACE. I hope if NICE uses FatiGo as part of its evidence, the people making the decisions read and understand this paper.

    Huge thanks to the authors.
     
  5. Mark Vink

    Mark Vink Established Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    278
    Thread merged.

    Just published in Health Psychology Open, review of the FatiGo trial (Vos-Vromans), one of the 13 pieces of evidence NICE will review.


    Mark Vink, Alexandra Vink-Niese,
    First Published August 6, 2018 Review Article

    Abstract
    The FatiGo trial concluded that multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment is more effective for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis in the long term than cognitive behaviour therapy and that multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment is more cost-effective for fatigue and cognitive behaviour therapy for quality of life. However, FatiGo suffered from a number of serious methodological flaws. Moreover, it ignored the results of the activity metre, its only objective outcome. This jeopardizes the validity of FatiGo. Its analysis shows that there was no statistically significant difference between multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment and cognitive behaviour therapy and neither are (cost-)effective. FatiGo’s claims of efficacy of multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment and cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis are misleading and not justified by their results.


    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2055102918792648
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2018
  6. Tilly

    Tilly Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1,510
    The person sitting on the panel to help the laypeople to understand research and the process is Professor Tony Kendrick. Most on the panel seem to be mental health researchers and providers. Nigel Beasly is an ENT, is a clinical lead in cancer Nottingham Uni Hospital and deals with clinical outcomes.
     
  7. Tilly

    Tilly Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    1,510
    Why are they only reviewing 13 pieces of evidence? and how do we know which ones they are reviewing? Fluff a Duck how come they announce it this way ? In need of serious amounts of coffee
     
  8. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,285
    Likes Received:
    27,136
    That sounds a bit unlikely to me. The only reference given in that sentence was to this, which does not support the point: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2055102918792648
     
  9. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    3,390
    The reference given for that quote was Appendix B of the recent NICE surveillance report

    "Of the approximately 300 pieces of evidence highlighted to NICE by stakeholders during the consultation, the following 13 met criteria to be included in the surveillance review. Any potential impact on the guideline of the evidence is also noted."

    and they marked it "as unclear"

    "Unclear – Multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment (i.e. gradual reactivation, pacing, mindfulness, body awareness therapy, normalising sleep-wake rhythm and social reintegration combined with CBT) was more costeffective than CBT when using fatigue as primary outcome variable. Using QALY as the primary outcome, CBT was more cost-effective"


    https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg...ed-to-nice-during-consultation-pdf-4602203535
     
  10. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,285
    Likes Received:
    27,136
    Thanks! That was just for the surveillance review though, so I didn't think it could be that. It looks like you're right that it is the source of the '13 pieces of evidence' claim though. To me this reads as if it's claiming that the full review of the NICE guidelines will only review 13 pieces of evidence:

     
  11. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    8,555
     
  12. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    8,555
     
  13. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    9,148
  14. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    8,555
     
    Invisible Woman, Inara, Wonko and 2 others like this.
  15. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    8,555
     
  16. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    8,555
    This includes means scores from 21 different cohorts (including the two in the study). This could be useful to refer to in the future.
     
  17. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    8,555
     
    Invisible Woman, Inara, Wonko and 2 others like this.
  18. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    8,555
     
    Invisible Woman, Inara, Wonko and 4 others like this.
  19. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    8,555
    It might be useful to be cautious when quoting the 62.2 figure. The PCS scores are supposed to be norm-based with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 for the general population. Though in the general population some people are somewhat disabled either through age, disability or illness.
     
  20. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    8,555
    Nice find to have a reference to backup this point.
     

Share This Page