Response: Sharpe, Goldsmith and Chalder fail to restore confidence in the PACE trial findings

Cheshire said:
Click to expand...

upload_2019-3-27_18-38-17.png

Sharpe really is incorrigible. As always, strongly implying untruths by very selectively filtering the truths that get seen and those that get hidden. He is getting so blatant with it now. Desperate? And he purports to be a scientist. He seems to think this is how science is done. I'm convinced this mindset played a major part in the PACE methodological flaws.
 
This has to have a bearing on the Cochrane review. Surely the weaknesses of the PACE trial paper are so laid bare now that there's no place left to hide them however hard some might try. I'm having trouble weighing this up against my ingrained low expectations though. What do others think?
 
If you declare the PACE trial inadmissable (because changing endpoints to make sure you get the right result is not science - as the authors have admitted they did in print) and use the published results from FINE rather than the unpublished adhoc results, there can barely be enough numbers left to say anything, can there?
 
I'm working with our local health authority to revise the clinical guidance for ME/CFS. And this morning the health authority forwarded an email from a physiotherapist who seemed very pleased to have found the Sharpe, Goldsmith and Chalder article defending PACE. And the health authority people asked the question, 'Any comments?'.

And I, even in my PEM and migraine befuddled state, smiled. I attached the Wilshire and Kindlon article to my reply, knowing that it set out, beautifully clearly, what needed to be said. Thanks Tom and Carolyn.
 
BruceInOz said:
If you declare the PACE trial inadmissable (because changing endpoints to make sure you get the right result is not science - as the authors have admitted they did in print) and use the published results from FINE rather than the unpublished adhoc results, there can barely be enough numbers left to say anything, can there?
Click to expand...
FINE had null results and it's still used as positive evidence in the review. Quality of evidence is obviously not a factor here.

But it's hard to maintain the value of the review without the only ersatz evidence of any value, thanks to its combined eminence of being very expensive and being published by The Lancet (who would never, ever publish flawed research, QED).
 
Bizarrely I found this on MS twitter feed
Using evidence to overcome fake news about healthcare
a podcast of a shortish lecture by Professor Carl Heneghan
Professor Carl Heneghan has extensive experience of working with the media. In this talk he will discuss some recent case examples, working with the BBC amongst others.
This talk will discuss how using an evidence-based approach can help overcome the growing problem of fake news, and provide insights on how to work with the media to ensure your message is not distorted, and will discuss why academics should engage more with the media and the wider public.

Professor Carl Heneghan is Director of CEBM, and an NHS Urgent Care GP, and has been interested for over twenty years in how we can use evidence in real world practice.
Click to expand...

http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/using-evidence-overcome-fake-news-about-healthcare

CEBM is
The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine develops, promotes and disseminates better evidence for healthcare.
https://www.cebm.net/

he's on twitter
https://twitter.com/carlheneghan?lang=en
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom