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

Study Protocol: Long-term Effects of COVID-19 in Adolescents (LoTECA), Wyller

Discussion in 'Long Covid news' started by MSEsperanza, Feb 10, 2021.

  1. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,855
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    This post copied and following posts moved from this thread:
    The international collaborative on fatigue following infection (COFFI), 2018, Katz et al

    Long-term Effects of COVID-19 in Adolescents (LoTECA)

    Information provided by (Responsible Party):
    Vegard Wyller, University Hospital, Akershus

    Primary Outcome Measures:
    Fatigue [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up ]
    Total sum score on the Chalder Fatigue Scale (range 0 - 33, lower scores means less fatigue, ie. better outcome)

    Study protocol:
    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ProvidedDocs/34/NCT04686734/Prot_000.pdf

    "Recent neurobiological studies suggest that PICF/CFS is related to misguided automatic and unconscious predictions.26,54

    "This alternative model is supported by evidence of psychosocial factors (such as negative life events and trait negative affectivity) being risk factors for long-lasting post-infectious conditions."


    References:
    26 = Kube T, et al. Clin Psychol Rev 2020;76:101829
    54 = Van Den Berg O, et al. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2017;74:185-203.

    Posted on this thread because..

    National collaborative network and the COFFI collaborative
    As of March 2019, the consortium is chaired by Prof. Wyller; basic infrastructure (data managing, biobanking, statistical support) has been established, and will be made available for the present project.
    Edit: Seems they have a new website: https://www.coffi-collaborative.com/participatingcohorts

    :confused: :ill:

    @dave30th

    Edit 2: Perhaps someone should ask Retraction Watch to follow up the Wyller's music therapy story?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2021
  2. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,494
    Location:
    Belgium
    The study actually looks interesting. Look forward to seeing the results.

    IMHO: the more researchers doing prospective studies on COVID-19 cases, the better (even if they have published bad studies in the past). We have to use the occasion to get valuable data on this.
     
    Simon M and Michelle like this.
  3. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,871
    Location:
    UK
    Even with the Chalder questionnaire as primary outcome? Maybe someone should send the researchers a critique of CFQ, and encourage them to at least add a different fatigue scale and objective activity measurement.
     
    lycaena, Sean, alktipping and 2 others like this.
  4. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,494
    Location:
    Belgium
    Yes, but they will also test many other things including different ME/CFS criteria.

    I think the CFQ biggest problems are with its use in treatment trials (because of the interpretation problems and ceiling effects).

    In cases like this, I think it's not that bad that it would ruin an entire study. It will indicate if patients have a lot of fatigue-related symptoms or not.

    What do you see as the biggest issue with it in this context?
     
    Dolphin, lycaena, Simon M and 2 others like this.
  5. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    Wyller's history of misrepresenting his own results is enough of a problem for me.

    IMO the biggest problem with PACE was the researchers, and that was a big problem.

    Here we have Wyller working with Recovery Norway, as with his music CBT study. I don't think that this is likely to be great.
     
    Campanula, mango, lycaena and 10 others like this.
  6. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,871
    Location:
    UK
    One problem with the 33 point CFQ scoring is the nonsensical differentiation between 0 and 1 on each item. If enough use 0 rather than 1 that artificially reduces averages. Also the ceiling effect can distort scores significantly.
     
  7. Midnattsol

    Midnattsol Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,574
    I'm happy for a prospective study, and hope we get some good data from this, but I have to agree with @Esther12 that a history of misrepresenting results is worrysome.
     
    Campanula, lycaena, Simon M and 5 others like this.
  8. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    Aside from lack of credibility and a useless primary outcome, the lab work is very basic and has already been done. This is not their strength, whatever their strength actually is. Like Wessely doing a few immunological tests and calling it a day. Many studies have already gone into far more depth analyzing metabolites, immunological profiles and the rest of what they are testing for, already published.

    It's only better than usual because they are doing lab work instead of just psychometric questionnaires. That's a very low bar, especially in the wrong hands and whatever that hypothesis about "misguided predictions" is doing there. It's just a waste of resources, frankly, will have no useful impact.

    But in a sense if this means taking up time away from usual BPS junk, that makes it a trivial positive.
     

Share This Page