Search results

SNP MP secures debate on controversial DWP-funded ME trial http://www.carol.monaghan.scot/2018/02/07/pace-trial/

We have another CBT trial to look forward to: From the protocol paper:

It would be interesting to have data on these goal sheets and for an independent person to assess whether patients had reached such goals. I don't believe the Dutch CBT school ever discuss these goal sheets in terms of outcomes in published papers.

From the protocol paper:

That's interesting. According to the protocol, somebody with a low level of activity is not supposed to go to a stabilisation period even though they could be fluctuating, but just at a lower level of activity. From the protocol paper:

From the protocol paper:

From the protocol paper: Firstly, I doubt a lot of these are truly recovered. Also there is no sign that participants hear from patients who believe some or all of the programme made them worse.

From the protocol paper:

(Not very exciting) From the protocol paper:

I noticed on Twitter someone replied and Carol asked did she have permission to mention it. So best to explicitly say what you are happy to be shared. I don't think full names will be mentioned but perhaps if you don't want your first name mentioned, say that. I don't follow such formats so...

Parliamentary business for Tuesday 20 February 2018 House of Commons 11am - 11.30am Westminster Hall debate PACE trial and its effect on people with ME - Carol Monaghan...

If I recall correctly Dr Enlander/his research team were given in the region of $1,000,000 by a patient. I very much hope some studies will be published.

These people were a lot healthier at baseline than for example the people in the PACE trial. Average SF-36 physical functioning (0-100) score: PACE trial: 38.05 This trial: 62.5 Average Chalder fatigue questionnaire (0-33) score: PACE trial: 28.2 This trial: 24.1

I find it interesting to see the individual data in studies, like they have given here. Though I would have been more interested in other outcome measures than fatigue.

Yes, the text confirms this:

The harms data is on page 2 of this file: https://static.cambridge.org/resource/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20180201110521005-0988:S0007125017000228:S0007125017000228sup002.docx

Here is an example of what they recommend in their manual (this manual isn't specifically mentioned in this study). I think it is completely reckless but imagine that very few patients actually try to stick to it for very long:

This all seems a bit risky to me given that the chances are people won't recover after a CBT program. I wonder how many people actually follow instructions like this.

I find this a bit bizarre. They tend to make grand claims about CBT yet here they downplay a positive result.