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 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.
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...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.