1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 22nd June 2020 is in two parts here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Guest, the DecodeME study has announced £3.2m of funding, click here to read about it.
    Dismiss Notice

Outpatient CBT for Motor Functional Neurological Disorder and Other Neuropsychiatric Conditions: A Retrospective Case Comparison (2019) O’Connell

Discussion in 'Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS' started by Sly Saint, Aug 30, 2019.

Tags:
  1. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,687
    Likes Received:
    39,123
    Location:
    UK
    Nicola O’Connell, M.Sc., Ph.D.,Gillian Watson, B.N., P.G.Dip.CBT,Clare Grey, M.Sc., P.G.Dip.CBT,
    Rosa Pastena, D.Clin.Psych.,Kenneth McKeown, B.Sc.
    https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.19030067?journalCode=jnp



    "This study provides evidence that CBT is feasible and effective for some patients with mFND."
    suspect that this will be another instance where the evidence is weak and improvement minimal.
    eta: scihub http://sci-hub.tw/https://neuro.psy...1176/appi.neuropsych.19030067?journalCode=jnp
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  2. strategist

    strategist Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,828
    Likes Received:
    27,924
    That seems to be equally consistent with the positive effect being merely due to bias (expectation that the treatment will work or could work).
     
  3. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,687
    Likes Received:
    39,123
    Location:
    UK
    scihub link now in OP

    their explanation
    they do always seem to have an answer to everything.
     
    Annamaria and Andy like this.
  4. large donner

    large donner Guest

    Messages:
    1,214
    Likes Received:
    9,227
    That's an automatic fail then idiots.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  5. strategist

    strategist Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,828
    Likes Received:
    27,924
    Expectation isn't the only factor driving biased responses.
     
  6. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,993
    Likes Received:
    30,314
    Location:
    Canada
    This sentence could be rewritten this way and not lose any meaning or value:

    A logistic regression analysis found only a single predictor of symptom improvement in the astrology group: acceptance of an astrological explanation of symptoms prior to treatment.​

    Obviously people who believe in astrology will report more benefits from... is there such a thing as astrological treatments? I guess the LP somehow counts.

    Anyway, this shows how utterly useless this is. Substitute for scientology, homeopathy, healing crystals or anything else and you'd get the same outcome. Hell, a huge number of people are drinking their aged urine and reporting... things, of some kind.

    With the rise of woo all over medicine, I think there should be strong considerations to adding quack treatment controls in addition to placebo controls. So compare the active treatment with no treatment and an unambiguous make-believe treatment. I absolutely do not trust the people promoting this nonsense to do honest comparisons, they would likely sabotage the quack treatments the same way PACE sabotaged pacing, but over time I think a clear picture would emerge and things like CBT would actually underperform compared to most other quack pseudoscience.
     
  7. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,993
    Likes Received:
    30,314
    Location:
    Canada
    Expectations. Researcher bias in psychosomatics is essentially maximized and influences all decisions, including which questionnaires are more likely to give what answers, as well as in cherry-picking and selective reporting.

    Researcher bias is often what will lead to leverage and maximize participant bias, something that is now normalized because of trials like PACE that directly and explicitly tried to influence the outcome by creating expectations in the participants, then performing data analysis based on the researchers' expectations (and that of their sponsors, of course).

    Looking more and more like we are in the age placebo, bias is now of no concern, in fact it is encouraged specifically to achieve outcomes and the scientific method is for suckers.
     
    obeat, Lisa108, Sean and 2 others like this.

Share This Page