Search results

No. As far as I remember there are no objective measures being recorded. Primary outcomes are CFQ and Sf36-physical function (I think). There may be some form of school attendance measure (can't remember). That's one of the big objections.

If the PACE PIs didn't think it was worth recording in the minutes then they shouldn't be using it as an excuse in public. It would be interesting to know what was recollected and also whether any questions were asked when that statement was first made. Part if the issue is that when PACE...

But that doesn't tell they what the representative agreed to. To me the point is that the PACE team are making claims and blaming people for things that are not contained in their minutes. It wouldn't surprise me if the AfME representative had questioned the need for all the form filling in...

Could there be a selection effect in these trials where they are looking for people with higher levels of auto-antibodies hence finding a smaller subset that wouldn't be found anywhere near as often at random?

Personally I would avoid using torrent etc. I've always worried that it is a route for hackers to spread malware (although no evidence of this!). I believe youtube are quite quick to take down copyrighted material when someone contacted by someone but I suspect they only police things for the...

Didn't the TMG minutes stress the importance of this?

It looks like a feasibility study to see if they could do a trial with 26 patients in one arm and 24 in the other. So may be too underpowered to show a significant difference. Also subjective outcomes (possibly judged by a doctor with a 45 minute interview).

The PACE PIs always try to deflect or blame others. So with the protocol changes they said they were approved by the TSC which is independent and with the actigraphy they were deflecting to AfME and for the bad results and bad methodology they are now trying to deflect to Cochrane saying they...

I think this is where they try to blame action for ME (the patient charity).

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.