Trial Report Resistance Exercise Therapy for Long COVID: a Randomized, Controlled Trial 2025 Berry et al.

Someone added a comment to the paper (scroll to the bottom):

Misleading interpretation of the null results?
First paragraph:

In the Statistical Analysis plan, the authors state that "[t]he minimum clinically important between-group difference in the ISWT at follow-up (3 months) = 46 m, SD=105 [20]." The adjusted mean difference between the groups was 36.5 m, well below the threshold of MCID.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Authors responded:
We appreciate the interest in the CISCO-21 trial of resistance exercise in people after COVID-19 infection. In this trial, a personalized program of resistance exercise for 3-months improved walking capacity, health-related quality of life and hand grip strength and was well tolerated. A broad range of secondary outcomes were assessed but the trial was not powered for secondary outcome analyses. The enrolled population was not frail therefore, expectedly, perception of frailty did not improve.

We agree that in an open-label trial, participant responses are susceptible to expectation bias, but there is no evidence for or against bias in this study.

On the other hand, there is evidence of benefit. The primary outcome was met and this was associated with an improvement in health-related quality of life.

We disagree that the observed improvements in secondary outcomes are small; the magnitude of improvement in grip strength (2.6 kg) is meaningful and this assertion is supported by the literature.

There are few, if any, evidence-based therapies for post-COVID-19 conditions. Based on the results of the CISCO-21 trial, resistance exercise is safe, inexpensive and effective for improving physical function in people after COVID-19 infection. Resistance exercise is accessible to a broad range of individuals. This study supports adoption of personalised resistance exercise as a therapy option for people with post-COVID-19 conditions.
Click to expand...

They didn't say anything about the commenter's main point - that the pre-selected minimum important difference was not achieved.
 
forestglip said:
Authors responded:


They didn't say anything about the commenter's main point - that the pre-selected minimum important difference was not achieved.
Click to expand...
It's hard to not see academia as being totally broken when this is so completely routine the journals don't even care. All they do is repeat the marketing bullet points and ignore every single point of criticism. Obviously the academics don't care either, which is basically a red flag whose fibres are themselves made entirely of red flags.

Actually this isn't just routine, in evidence-based rehab it's almost universal. Every step of the research stage is useless at preventing fraud and pseudoscientific ideology. Peer review editorial review are just as useless, as long as they get the payments they don't care. Post-publication comments don't even matter, they can simply do the equivalent of saying "but Red Bull gives you wiiiiings" and it's all good to everyone involved, except the tiny few of us who actually care because we have all the stakes.

Those systems have become so bad it's actually hard to see any reason to keep propping them up. Science and expertise have been targets of illegitimate attacks, but have become so complacent and corrupt all on their own that it's actually hard to defend the value of this system, it has clearly passed the limits of what it can achieve. Their own mistakes create too much distraction to even focus on the illegitimate attacks, but those systems are totally incapable of fixing themselves.
 
rvallee said:
It's hard to not see academia as being totally broken when this is so completely routine the journals don't even care. All they do is repeat the marketing bullet points and ignore every single point of criticism. Obviously the academics don't care either, which is basically a red flag whose fibres are themselves made entirely of red flags.

Actually this isn't just routine, in evidence-based rehab it's almost universal. Every step of the research stage is useless at preventing fraud and pseudoscientific ideology. Peer review editorial review are just as useless, as long as they get the payments they don't care. Post-publication comments don't even matter, they can simply do the equivalent of saying "but Red Bull gives you wiiiiings" and it's all good to everyone involved, except the tiny few of us who actually care because we have all the stakes.

Those systems have become so bad it's actually hard to see any reason to keep propping them up. Science and expertise have been targets of illegitimate attacks, but have become so complacent and corrupt all on their own that it's actually hard to defend the value of this system, it has clearly passed the limits of what it can achieve. Their own mistakes create too much distraction to even focus on the illegitimate attacks, but those systems are totally incapable of fixing themselves.
Click to expand...
Getting caught in a lie and doubling down.. Classic propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom