Search results

Sorry - Missed this thread and started another. Will copy it over to here: Genetic findings in anorexia lead to questioning of link to perfectionism [Guardian article by the terrible Ian Sample] I've not looked at the original research (maybe this is over-hyped rubbish?!), and am just...

Thanks for all your work Michiel.

Vincent Deary creeps me out whenever I come across something from him.

Maybe. But surely that would have shown up in their feasibility sutdy, prior to converting to a full trial. And if that was the case shouldn't they have reported it rather than claimed "that self-reported school attendance lined up very well with the schools’ records of attendance" [as reported...

Fair points, but some possible responses: Seems unlikely that all the individuals would say no - they already had ethics approval. If it was too much faff by the time they were converting their feasibility study into a full trial then that should have been reflected in the protocol for the full...

I guess she could say she was only talking about the data she had (what does she have?!)? If she was referring to some limited data, rather than outcome data for SMILE, in response to concerns about 'placebo' distorting scores for self-report outcomes then she surely would have known she was...

From Buzzfeed: https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/inside-the-controversial-therapy-for-chronic-fatigue In the original protocol : http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/ccah/migrated/documents/smprotv6final.pdf

Just to point out that there's a note listing the changes here (that I'd previously missed): https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2019/07/11/archdischild-2017-313375corr1

It looks like the original version of the article is still available on PMC, and I archived a copy here in case it's useful: https://web.archive.org/web/20190711172758/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865512/ I tried to compare the text here ( bit of a mess - I had trouble getting...

It shouldn't matter whether or not the editor believes it was all an innocent mistake, what matters is that the BMJ should never have published it. "The process has additionally involved seeking assurance from the authors that the change in primary outcome was not influenced by (positive)...

Nice one - that was a really clear explanation of this undeniable problem. I think I find the article style blogs easier to take in than the open letters, though I only realised that when I got to the letter section of this blog and felt myself having to work harder. By "Dawn Golder is...

No. I think Bavinton is particularly rubbish though. I cringe whenever I read anything from her about research - she really doesn't seem to have a clue.

Not interesting enough for a new thread, but Jessica Bavinton's Vitality 360 has a statement on the PACE controversy that says "we would like to address these concerns from the context of our position as experts in the delivery of rehabilitation programmes in this field" but then fails to...

What a nasty and bigoted view of the controversy from Helland. I wonder if she really believes that is the cause of the divide, or if she has decided to cynically stigmatise patients for raising concern about poor quality research that harms how they're treated? "Unfortunately some patients are...

A long time ago I read some pop-science neurology that I quite enjoyed, but I've since come to realise that a lot of what they said was rubbish. I'm afraid that leaves me without a recommendation for you. Good luck with finding something though.

Not just Cochrane, but a lot of people in the field of mental health research/rehabilitation have got away with low standards for a long time, and have come to be viewed as 'independent experts' on what standards are appropriate. The idea that we should not be trying to raise standards is...

I forgot they even explicitly claimed that the primary outcome was reported in accordance with the protocol. Why were these people ever allowed to publish their review?

I missed that - from the Norwegian? I think I might have skimmed through these too quickly.

I only saw one reference to medically unexplained symptoms in there, saying that more research was needed. At the moment there is a problem with people being told that their symptoms are a result of Lyme when there is not good evidence that this is the case.

Also- good points about the missing documents. I don't really know how the Norwegian system works, but it seems something odd has happened there.