Good letters, but the authors' reply just takes the piss. Even their one concession (on provision of telemed) was used as an opportunity to plug FITNET. *sigh*
Sorry, yes, you're right.
But... it was not a primary outcome measure. It wasn't reported in the abstract, and, as you say, their definitions were very lax and subject to regression to the mean given that both measures were used as selection criteria:
"at least 2 points for fatigue and at least...
Errr... they quoteth BS.
They *assumed* a 60% improvement in working out the sample size. This was based on the much smaller (and biased) Liverpool study. A 60% improvement was never mentioned in the trial report itself.
The "follow-up study" mentioned is the PACE trial itself, and not the...
We need to keep mentioning/citing the follow-up study. They would have known the 2-year results when they published the 2011 paper. I very much doubt that a complete 5-year or 10-year follow-up will ever see the light of day, unless there is a full inquiry.
It might only be on the desktop version. There's a search box on the "Posts" page of most Pages. Otherwise there's graph search - but it's fairly inefficient.
Sorry - I don't know why the formatting isn't coming through. Anyone better versed at Wordpress who can advise?
It seems OK on Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari
I've just added this post: https://lucibee.wordpress.com/2018/03/15/richard-hortons-view-on-the-pace-trial-a-line-by-line-debunk/
Let me know if I've made any errors that need correcting. :D
I've just followed that up with this: https://lucibee.wordpress.com/2018/03/15/richard-hortons-view-on-the-pace-trial-a-line-by-line-debunk/
I don't know whether it will do any good. But if you think it might do harm, please let me know immediately!
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.