Search results

Thanks, @Russell Fleming Here’s the full Who’s Who of the new CMRC board. No Ed Sykes from the SMC Executive board members: Following the CMRC meeting in February 2018, members of the executive committee were confirmed as: Chair: Professor Stephen Holgate (University of Southampton)...

This looks interesting: “We have laid some important foundations” says Prof Stephen Holgate, Chair. “But this is not enough. We need action from the highest level and the CMRC is committed to working with others to drive this. Most importantly, we need to see results now, not in another five...

See this tweet of his about Unrest; he later helped present the film at the Scottish parliament. Also check out the comments about him in this thread, Including from those who have met him. Also I agree with that, and think that will be very much the focus. It’s what is implied within the...

Do you have a list of UK researchers? Neil Harrison is a new CMRC board member.

"establish a CFS/ME Platform, similar to that of the Dementias UK Platform, to expedite and consolidate biomedical CFS/ME research." The MRC has put more than £50m into the Dementias UK platform

Well, Cambridge :) > Prof Chinnery: My laboratory research programme is based in the MRC Mitochondrial Biology Unit, and studies the mechanisms of mitochondrial disease in patients and model systems. Our aim is to understand why specific cell types are so vulnerable in mitochondrial diseases...

I like: The CMRC's purpose is to promote the discovery of the biological mechanisms that underpin CFS/M.E., which, together with clinical observation, will drive the development of targeted new treatments for this highly underserved patient population.

Thanks for these replies. Maybe my post wasn't clear - I'm quoting the figures from your paper. The NNT was my own, and I thought the protocol wasn't clear as to whether or not the "clinically important difference" measure applied to just the overall improvers, or also applied to improvers on...

Here’s, a couple of graphs that reveal how far the PACE authors moved the goalposts for the primary outcomes, by comparing the protocol primary outcome of overall improver rates from this new paper with the published improver rates and the published recovery rates. Both definitions are based...

Comparison of protocol primary outcomes with published primary outcomes (did the switching matter?) I thought I'd bring things together to show the impact of changing primary outcomes, using the results from the new paper. Spoiler alert: the published outcomes always look better than...

Or a no, if we go with the Stats plan approach. As you and I both noted, the same plan also changed the primary outcomes, but I can see no way the PACE authors could argue against its plan for correcting multiple comparisons: the multiple comparison problem applies equally to the protocol...

I'm bravely/recklessly going to try to help (the first part of this post, more complex stuff further down). It's simplest if we us the correction method specified in the stats plan: 5 contrasts and the Bonferroni method of correction. Here's a handy summary of the results, showing what is...

Although they describe it as symptom-limited submaximal exercise, you can see from the heart rate and oxygen: carbon dioxide ratio at peak activity data that participants achieved something not that far from max levels. By contrast, the Lights set their exercise at something like 70% of...

I’m very keen on the idea of some kind of stress-test, including single exercise testing, to reveal biological differences. So this is great: it’s always seems like it would take some kind of exercise or other challenge to reveal differences between patients and controls. A few observations...

Like @Valentijn I am unimpressed without some published data to back it up. There are no end of plausible hypotheses out there and almost every one of them will be wrong.

I don’t think when they played around with the recovery data specifically actually matters here. Once they had sight of the whole data, they would start looking at the ranges of baseline and outcomes, and change scores, and see at once from that that their protocol recovery definition wouldn’t...

i’m probably going on about this unnecessarily, but... the recovery definition used is based around the “normal“ range for the primary outcomes of fatigue and function. This normal range was explicitly labelled as post hoc in the 2011 Lancet paper. Now, they didn’t need trial data to create...

So this was both an exploratory and prespecified?? And however they defined recovery there was always a difference - except they forgot to include their protocol definition of recovery, where there was no significant difference?!

Thank you for an impressive analysis that I think will come to be seen as a very important and influential piece of work. Somewhere on the Wolfson website PACE section, the authors state clearly that this was an exploratory analysis of recovery. My understanding is that exploratory means after...