Search results

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.

I criticised this point about a lower placebo response reported in that paper in this thread: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/placebo-response-in-the-treatment-of-cfs-systematic-review-meta-analysis-cho-et-al-2005.46408/

I wonder how interesting it is that the protocol-driven feedback didn't do better and indeed on the SF 36 physical functioning subscale, only the feedback on demand group was statistically better than the waiting list group (i.e. the protocol-driven feedback group wasn't).

A bit disappointing they don't calculate the DALYs considering they have the data. But then they don't even give the results for the EQ-6D unless they are going to be in another paper.

Not alone are participants with CFS told not to sleep during the day but they shouldn't lie down!

It's not really that tailored:

I find it a little odd that they don't do a sensitivity analysis where the 6 who do not satisfy the CDC criteria are excluded.

To put the actometer results in some context:

What prompted me to look at this was the Twisk & Corsius paper. They seem to say different things at different stages. but

Some comorbidities like fibromyalgia are not listed. I imagine some of the patients did have such comorbidities in which case the comorbidity rate is higher than 23%. Also this use dthe CDC criteria so some of the initial sample probably had comorbidities but were excluded from the research...

I think this is the only outcome measure that could be referred to for this point within these 5 trials: There could have been individuals who deteriorated in the trials but I don't believe such data was published. There is some evidence from surveys that some people report being made worse by CBT.

I don't think this is a strong point with these data. The dropout figures are given in table 1 and similar between the intervention and control groups.

They are talking about the average scores. Probably some individuals did reach "normal levels", indeed we know some did in Knoop et al, 2007.

I believe there is a small error here. It should see a score of 60 or more not 61. They are talking about PACE Trial.

When I initially read this I thought that the SIP8 criterion <=203 was part of the definition of full recovery. However looking back on it again I think maybe it is not included (and that if it was used the figure for full recovery might be lower). If one looks at the group of those with...