Search results

Most research seems to involves a lot of hype so that may be hard.

I would read it as a statement that the analysis plan wasn't expected to override and change the protocol which appears to be what happened. As far as I can tell the TSC never approved the final protocol changes just an analysis plan that failed to point them out, When the results were...

Interesting tweet from David Marks. I think he makes an important point about passive approval of the stats plan.

In one of the early sets of minutes it seems clear that they will publish in the Lancet because they are asking whether the way they registered to trial is ok for the lancet.

I'm still reading the TSG minutes but its not just the analysis plan they hadn't done for the start of the trial. The database wasn't ready and part way through the first year they were just moving to version 6. What has really struck me about the minutes is they clearly lack any form of...

George Monboit who is an environmentalist and guardian columnist has written a bit on the SMC http://www.monbiot.com/2003/12/09/invasion-of-the-entryists/ http://www.monbiot.com/2011/06/13/naming-the-genocide-deniers/

When they were looking to raise the SF36 score acceptable for recruitment the PACE PI's understood just how subjective the questionnaires were. (Just not when used for results)

I agree, I think things should move to the analysis being pre-coded so that as the last data is added to the database then the results tables would be produced. The PACE people seemed to have trouble 'cleaning data' so applying certain checks on the data can be helpful to detect possible errors.

An interesting comment on data sharing given their refusal to release data and the MRC backing up this decision in the information tribunal.

My interpretation is they dropped it as a secondary outcome in the analysis plan and then later produced an adhoc recovery definition created after the initial paper was published. They seem more concerned about PR strategies than the analysis plan and I've yet to come across protocol changes...

Did they select the people who wrote the editorial in the Lancet that made recovery claims based on their 'normal range'

Trial steering committee (TSG) which I believe is meant to be independent Trial management committee (TMG)

I seem to remember that the stats analysis plan doesn't raise the issue of protocol change but just introduces them. So this raises the issue of whether the protocol changes were explicitly approved.

Sounds dodgy to me. Sounds like Kings had issues.

They have been very supportive of White and QMUL in the past so just keeping quite is good.

The pdf copy has been updated with the correction

At least they didn't use the expert Dr James Thompson who they used to comment on Smile He was also organizing eugenics conferences.

CONSORT says they are required to give reasons but the reasons they gave were along the lines of "we felt like it".

I think they are reliant on Cochrane as a verification these days. I do wonder if they are trying to get a pre-emtive strike in over this paper

I think there was a anti-depressant that caused suicides in teenagers which ran into this type of problem in reporting harms because suicide was seen as part of depression. But in that case evidence was in trial data that was then reexamined. My argument would be evidence of benefit from such...