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

REC advice on PACE trial data changed in favour of release

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by JohnTheJack, Jul 11, 2019.

  1. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    UK
    I find it annoying that they are an organization that cannot admit they made a mistake or that the researchers (QMUL) didn't give them sufficient information to make a decision. It feels like as an organization they don't analyze a situation, read between the lines, ask for additional information etc. They just seem to react to what they are given and I assume normally in a positive manner.

    I get the impression that ME trials (or the researchers doing them) have stretched their abilities due to the researchers willingness to present inaccurate or very one sided information as if it was a consensus view.
     
    Woolie, MEMarge, ukxmrv and 13 others like this.
  2. Joel

    Joel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    941
    Location:
    UK
    I always admire your tenacity @JohnTheJack well done. Your efforts really are causing change.
     
    Woolie, Webdog, NelliePledge and 16 others like this.
  3. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,350
    He has been kept up to date with developments.
     
  4. large donner

    large donner Guest

    Messages:
    1,214
    Can someone do a quick summary of exactly what has been released to JohnTheJack and by whom.

    I am confused as to how PLOS One has been told to release data if they are a private organisation.

    I am assuming this wasnt a FOI?

    Who has been forced to release data and by which governing body?
     
    Jim001, Liessa and rvallee like this.
  5. Liessa

    Liessa Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    44
    As far as I understand this is not so much 'forcing to release', as it is taking away reasons not to.

    Publishing in PLOS comes with a mandatory promise to share data on request. However PLOS has previously elected not to enforce this promise. While I'm not completely clear on the details, I suspect the RECs position was part of this decision, and this change removes cause for PLOSes previous inaction in this matter.

    Edit: ah, yes, @JohnTheJack actually also said this in the OP:

     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2019
    Woolie, Simon M, rvallee and 8 others like this.
  6. large donner

    large donner Guest

    Messages:
    1,214

    Thanks. I am assuming PLOS one is a private organisation, which operates under certain policy based "promises," and the REC is a government organisation so what power do they have over PLOS one or anyone who publishes there?
     
  7. Liessa

    Liessa Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    44
    It's not really about having power over anyone. PLOS used the REC's previous position to justify their decision to not enforce the datasharing. Now that this position has changed, this rationale doesn't hold up anymore.

    @JohnTheJack has asked PLOS to reconsider, given this change.
     
    MEMarge, Simon M, rvallee and 3 others like this.
  8. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,350
    As a condition of publication by PLOS ONE, the researchers agreed to release data on request:
    The PLOS ONE policy governing the sharing of data that applies to articles submitted before March 3, 2014, requires that authors agree to make freely available any materials and data described in their publication that may be reasonably requested for the purpose of academic, non-commercial research.

    A number of requests were made for the data. There followed extensive discussions between PLOS ONE, the universities and the researchers, involving lawyers. In the end, PLOS ONE crumbled and decided that they could not require release of the data.

    PLOS ONE did make an 'Expression of Concern' (EoC). The researchers, as is standard, were allowed to publish their response to this EoC.
    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177037

    There was some reaction to the EoC and response, but essentially that was where matters rested.

    I have put in FOIs to the universities to get the data another way.

    The response by the researchers relied upon the REC's advice:
    During negotiations with the journal over these matters, we have sought further guidance from the PACE trial REC. They have advised that public release, even of anonymised data, is not appropriate.

    I put in an FOI for a copy of this advice and it stated that data should be released to other researchers but not publicly. I went back to PLOS ONE with this and said make them release the data to eg Coyne. They refused.

    I also asked the REC to reconsider. They did and actually changed their reasons for coming to the same decision (from 'ME is a special case' to 'can't be properly anonymized').

    In the mean time, QMUL has released some of the data in question. I told PLOS ONE. It made no difference.

    I appealed against the REC's decision (including pointing out that some of the data had been released). No change.

    I then appealed to the HRA CoE and she upheld the appeal.

    It means that the advice on which researchers were relying to refuse to release the data has been changed. The REC is now saying that the data should be released.

    I have gone back to PLOS ONE and pointed out that now the ICO, the FTT and the REC all agree the data should be released. The researchers have nothing they can rely on and there is no excuse for PLOS ONE not to enforce their regulations.

    PLOS ONE has gone back to the researchers and we await developments.
     
    Woolie, Grigor, MEMarge and 39 others like this.
  9. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,145
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    Will they have the cheek to try “the dog ate my homework”. I wouldn’t put it past them.
     
    Woolie, MEMarge, Barry and 7 others like this.
  10. Ellie_Finesse

    Ellie_Finesse Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    60
    Location:
    UK
    Their reasoning (edited: resining) doesn’t make sense! There are ways they can release the data without breaching patient confidentiality. Sounds to me they are worried about the backlash they are going to get. Talk about digging yourself further in a hole lol
     
    MEMarge, Barry, ladycatlover and 3 others like this.
  11. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    More likely they will somehow argue it is too costly.

    Then we raise the freaking money and we wait once more for the goalposts to move.
     
  12. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    Hubris has a very strong downward pull. No matter how much slack you are given, eventually it just runs out.
     
    MEMarge and Ellie_Finesse like this.
  13. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    UK
    I suspect that no one has really examined how the RECs work or whether they are doing an adquate job. With ME patients looking they should be worried because there procedures don't seem to be fit for purpose. They seem too ready to allow protocol changes, with Crawley they have allowed feasibility studies to be converted to trials (by 2 people sub committees). And they seem to support data hiding on request.

    The question is what are they approving in other areas? Perhaps they will be additional concern as MPs are asking questions about PACE and things are not good in their handling.
     
    Woolie, MEMarge, rvallee and 15 others like this.
  14. Yvonne

    Yvonne Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    109
    MEMarge, Webdog, Barry and 6 others like this.
  15. Seven

    Seven Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    186
    OH dont worry about that we will raise the money, even if we have to do laying down car washes :woot::woot::woot::woot::woot:
     
    Annamaria, Daisy, Lisa108 and 6 others like this.
  16. MEMarge

    MEMarge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,733
    Location:
    UK
    Wasn't it the equivalent of "we've lost the key to the filing cabinet" or "the person who knew how to access it has retired"....
     
    Woolie, Joh, ladycatlover and 6 others like this.
  17. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
    Woolie, ladycatlover, Joh and 8 others like this.
  18. Simon M

    Simon M Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    882
    Location:
    UK
    Worth reading the study mentioned in the tweet: it relies on demographic data to reidentify people. there was nothing in the PACE trial dataset that would help anyone, at least not as far as I can tell from the article. I suspect that Michael Sharpe hasn't read it.
     
  19. feeb

    feeb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    155
    Location:
    London, UK
    Hahaha! Surely not? Ouch, my irony meter.
     
  20. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    The real question of course is: Why are the PACE authors so terrified of expert scientific scrutiny of their data? Surely it could not be fear of exposing even more research flaws? Maybe even worse? Their behaviour makes it very clear it is very unlikely to be mere concerns about patient confidentiality, but much more likely highly selfish reasons. At the very least they should allow the scientific community access to it, and not just their trusted disciples; scientists with good track records (not 'eminence') of understanding and applying good scientific research methods.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2019

Share This Page