Search results

So they used Petrella's Step Test, but then used someone else's unvalidated formula? It just gets better, doesn't it!

Having looked at the full trial protocol, and with reference to the TMG minutes, I can sort of understand why they ended up ditching actigraphy. I don't think they really understood why they were measuring it (it certainly wasn't to help participants to pace or track activity). They didn't...

The MEA have found the article and have said that I can post it here:

COI is a very, very grey area. When I worked at The Lancet, CoI was considered if you'd received any payment by Big Pharma. But I realised how problematic this is when I worked in research, because often drugs companies will pay for you to attend conferences, will pay for you to eat while at the...

It is utterly stunning that a professor of psychology is so unaware of human cognitive biases that they would even entertain making such a statement!

Thanks Andy - that's how I found out what the page numbers were! If no-one else can help, that will be my next step - but I thought I'd ask here first.

I've tracked it down to the July 2004 issue of ME Essential - "MEA calls for PACE to be scrapped" (pages 3-4). Does anyone have a copy? [ETA: Update - I now have a copy - see here] It was mentioned in this extract from BJPsychBull in 2015: There may also have been further discussion in the...

Thanks @Esther12 - I have all those - I was asking for the ME Association magazine article from 2004 that they referred to. From TMG #10 - 15 Sept 2004 From TMG #12 - 12 Oct 2004

Does anyone have back issues of the ME Association magazine from 2004? I'm trying to find the article that mentions the PACE trial from that time. It's mentioned in the TSC/TMG minutes, with accusations of a "concerted campaign" against the trial.

More evidence that the SMC group wasn't a control group (from TMG #15): *facepalm*

Yes, it's crucially important. It's the main reason why the DWP funded the study in the first place!

@Carolyn Wilshire We're discussing the TSC and TMG meetings over on this thread, if you'd like to join us: https://www.s4me.info/threads/pace-trial-tsc-and-tmg-minutes-released.3150/

More truthful version (probably): "Actigraphy is a measure of physical activity, measured by a wrist watch sized accelerometer, worn around the ankle continuously for a week. Before we started the trial, we were advised by the patient charity that the number and scope of the outcome measures...

I've put together a PDF with all the Actigraphy mentions in the minutes.

I suspect the minutes of the Analysis Strategy Group will have more detail on the "issues" they had with actigraphy.

Ah - OK. I'm making assumptions again. (naughty naughty) I'll see if I can get hold of this.

In Feb 2007 they are still discussing the actigraphy analysis strategy. At this point, the protocol had already been submitted for publication.

But we don't really know how they were even using actigraphy at baseline. Was there anything in the protocol about that?

They are doing things that they simply should not be doing. Here is that step test account from TMG #16: The whole point of the step test is that it cannot be "paced". It is carried out using a metronome to make sure that it is NOT "carried out at a pace that suits the patient"!!! Aaargh...

The main thing I get from reading these minutes is how shockingly badly they understand the disease they're studying. They keep tripping over red flags - left, right and centre - and yet are so sure in their convictions that they just ignore them and carry on. It's quite baffling.