Damning criticism of the flawed #PACEtrial by psychologist Prof Brian Hughes

Damning criticism of the flawed #PACEtrial in a new book by Prof Brian Hughes on the “rampant methodological crisis” in psychology.

 'Rampant methodological crisis' - describes how psychologists invent their own study methods, change them part way if the data don't fit their preconceptions, misuse stats etc.

 “The controversies surrounding the PACE trial can be seen as emblematic of the real-world problems caused by psychology’s many crises.”

 From p. 140: That the PACE Trial continues to be so doggedly defended, despite a litany of damaging critiques, shows us how psychologists can retain an unswerving allegiance to their own ideas.

 You can read here part of the pages dedicated to the PACE trial (from p132 to 140, p 138 is missing).

The Times: Call for review of ‘flawed’ ME research in Lancet letter

R

By Tom Whipple, Science Editor, August 21 2018, 12:01am, The Times

More than a hundred academics have joined ten MPs and scores of patient groups from around the world to sign an open letter calling for The Lancet to reanalyse a study into treatment for myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).

The letter follows a debate in parliament in which one MP said that the study, which is used to set NHS guidelines, “will go down as one of the biggest medical scandals of the 21st century”. The authors of the research paper stood by their findings and said that the letter represented a campaign to discredit solid research and force the retraction of papers simply because patients disagreed with their findings.

The signatories, who include academics from Harvard, Stanford, UCL and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said that the 2011 Pace trial, which recommended therapy and exercise as a treatment for the condition, had “major flaws” and “unacceptable methodological lapses”.

The £5 million publicly funded trial was published in The Lancet and has informed advice on treating people with ME in the NHS and abroad, but is controversial among ME sufferers. Some claim that its advice perpetuates an idea that the disease, which causes debilitating disability, is all in the mind.

The Lancet declined to comment.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/call-for-review-of-flawed-me-research-in-lancet-letter-l75rvcprh   

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment is not effective for ME/CFS : A review of the FatiGo trial

Review of the FatiGo trial (Vos-Vromans), one of the 13 pieces of evidence NICE will review. FatiGo, a trial with many problems including ignoring its own results.

Mark Vink, Alexandra Vink-Niese,

First Published August 6, 2018 Review Article 

Abstract

The FatiGo trial concluded that multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment is more effective for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis in the long term than cognitive behaviour therapy and that multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment is more cost-effective for fatigue and cognitive behaviour therapy for quality of life. However, FatiGo suffered from a number of serious methodological flaws. Moreover, it ignored the results of the activity metre, its only objective outcome. This jeopardizes the validity of FatiGo. Its analysis shows that there was no statistically significant difference between multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment and cognitive behaviour therapy and neither are (cost-)effective. FatiGo’s claims of efficacy of multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment and cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis are misleading and not justified by their results.

Full text