ME/CFS Skeptic
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Was able to read the paper today (it is now open-access) and it seems that Sid suspicion was right: this is a post-hoc subgroup analysis because the original analysis found no effect. The authors write:If this is a secondary analysis, is there a paper describing the analysis of primary endpoint? The way they’re slicing and dicing the sample in an arbitrary way and looking at interactions makes me think the primary endpoint was negative.
In the present study, we consider data from a third trial of videoconference-delivered CBSM (V-CBSM) for which results reported on the NIH funding database indicated no overall pre-post intervention effects on change in symptom intensity, symptom frequency, or perceived stress (see ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01650636). We re-analyze these data from the perspective of a PEM subgroup analysis