Search results

Was that in a response for the NICE guidelines. I think he wanted to recommend against disability aids.

I seem to remember that Wessely was claiming that one small study on one aspect of muscle function meant that there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with muscle function.

Given it was just baseline data I suspect it was. But it could be it exposed something uncomfortable for them.

I get the impression that the necessary analytics was too complex for them.

I've changed it for you

There is an updated version on the first post now along with a link so non-members can access the document or a link to the document can be sent to people https://www.s4me.info/docs/PaceBriefing3.pdf

The point that Likert made is that if want to measure someones views on A then you may wish to ask them basically the same question multiple times because they may make errors or not understand the question. So you ask the same question multiple times using different words and add up the...

Receiver operating characteristics curve. It plots true positive rate (TPR) against the false positive rate (FPR) using various thresholds so that for a given (one class) classifier you can decide on an appropriate threshold to use. Its often used to report on how good a classifier is...

They are used as summative but I don't think the story is that simple. For example the CFQ has two major components (physical and mental fatigue) so really it should be a multi-component thing but its not used as that. With the Sf36 there are questions about different physical abilities...

I think there are other needs for an inquiry. Its not necessarily about PACE but about the standards of governance that the MRC apply to trials they fund and whether it is robust. They seem to just hand out money and then say put a few independent people on a trial committee and it will all be ok.

They didn't but there was someone accusing Goldacre's team of being misleading by including lots of old stuff and pointing to others papers who were finding different things.

I think someone had done some analysis and the drug companies had cleaned up their act quite well but universities were less likely to follow good methodology. The last thing drug companies want is for a drug not to be approved because they have not followed the rules. They probably think more...

I've been wondering about this. Data scientists often talk about the need to have subject matter experts who understand the data in order to get good analysis results. In this case I think that would mean having someone who understands the nature of the measurement instruments and hence how they...

Its not just the trial as handled by the MRC but also how they handled issues afterwards. They dismissed complaints including the changing of endpoints saying it would have little effect. They also acted as a witness in the information tribunal to try to suppress access to the data (perhaps...

Also from that FoI One of the reasons I think it is important is to understand the reasons given for changes that were made. The ones published in the Lancet aren't sufficient to justify the change in my view so this leads me wondering is there more (reasons) or could they get away with anything.

Did we know that? My feeling for a while is that they slipped in the changes to the analysis plan rather than being explicit about them. These minutes seem to me to confirm that but I think it is up to them to provide evidence of approval. I think the other important question is around the...

I thought this was interesting in the TMG minutes from the 4th of november 2009 But the minutes from the previous TSG meeting are dated 29th April 2009 with the following meeting being 10th Sept 2010 In the previous minutes of the TMG on the 23rd of June 2009 they seem to report on the 29th...

It may just reflect the coming of the internet and the ease of getting new information. This goes back to the 70s in terms of papers published http://europepmc.org/search?query=AUTH:"Aylward+M"&page=2 but there can be some naming confusion [Added] One letter...

I thought the PACE day where they get all the therapists together was interesting. Is this where they get to hear what is going on in all the trial centers? It was intended to be a moral booster but its also ensures information exchange about progress (in an open label trial).

The stats plan dropped recovery as a secondary outcome. I think their claim is that the stats analysis plan replaces the protocol. There is nothing earlier in the minutes suggesting any awareness of the protocol changes. Quite a lot of detailed discussion around the table formats but nothing...