Search results

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...

They blocked my for asking if they had any comments about Crawley's failure to get ethical approval.

I don't see why someone wouldn't use such devices these days. I think they are not sufficiently good for medical purposes (diagnosis etc) but I would have thought they were for some from of longer term activity monitoring. Also I believe they are quite fashionable which means that many would be...

I assume it is US only patients?

I was going to say that suggests she knows there are flaws with the trials. The idea that young patients would cheat with accelerometers (fitbit etc) but that she still uses questionnaires is interesting. I like the idea of using smartphones, most have build in accelorometers and hence can...

Is that based on the Dilbert principle of promoting someone to a job where they can't do any harm? Maybe the question for Bristol University is does it signal a change in policy over getting ethical approval (i.e. don't bother or run a feasibility study and switch into a full study).

I would guess they wanted to see what it said about them and whether its bad. The correspondence is mainly administrative. I am guessing of course.

Best post is @Lucibee's summary of the 2004 docs https://www.s4me.info/threads/correspondence-from-the-dwp-for-2004.2771/#post-51130 Also 2003 docs https://www.s4me.info/threads/correspondence-from-the-dwp-for-2003.2682/

My guess is they wanted to look at the DWP correspondence that was posted here. You have to be a member to look at attachments and JohnTheJack tweeted that they were mentioned in them.

They have no presence here. They have made no attempt to have a presence apart from joining. Not even a bird avatar? We also registered as a stakeholder with NICE. We do hope to have an 'official status' at some point but just for the purpose of a forum to discuss science around ME and...

It would be interesting to know how common these symptoms are in ME. "self-care, social withdrawal and significant reduction in mobility and activity." all seem to follow from being severely ill. And also a bit of choosing where to use limited energy. I think some patients struggle with...

Yes I agree. But don't take any members identity for granted. If an organisation/researcher joins we van match the email address to the account. or the domain under which the email is created. But for example if NIH join and have a NIH email account then I would take that as official. But...