Search results

I guess a phama company may demand equal treatment to academics and point to how journals and editors have backed the bad practices of Crawley and PACE at every opportunity. Also if it was an innocent mistake when David Tuller pointed it out then the authors would, I assume, rush to correct the...

I find it annoying that they are an organization that cannot admit they made a mistake or that the researchers (QMUL) didn't give them sufficient information to make a decision. It feels like as an organization they don't analyze a situation, read between the lines, ask for additional...

I think the proposal that Chris Ponting, Stephen Holgate and others are putting forward to the MRC strategy board is really good. It isn't as such a direct request for funding particular research projects hence the quote that @Trish points to "CP spoke about the need to prepare for future NIHR...

I think that it is significant that they can't get their story straight in that sometimes they claim a treatment or cure (in their recovery paper) and other times they say it helps symptoms although unclear how. I think its an example of the wooly thinking that goes on in the area.

I think it is more they are judged by the numbers of papers published and without reviewing no one would meet the expected quota.

Because they need others to peer review their papers. Scientific publishing is quite a big and profitable business. Publishing costs were probably once higher as to print and distribute cost a lot now it is mainly digital then the costs of the necessary infrastructure have reduced massively...

Specifically ME Tom points to one here https://www.s4me.info/threads/cochrane-me-cfs-get-review-temporarily-withdrawn.6225/page-5#post-112908 Video

She also did some very dodgy training videos

I'm surprised that Tovy wasn't really angry with the review authors since they took what was an editorial discussion and made it into a high profile biased press story. This should tell him that they have no intention of following editorial guidelines and good practice but are more intent on...

I assumed that the standards they followed reflected the standards within the mental health research communities (or some of them)

Is it that each variant has a small effect or could it be that combinations of variants have an effect but not necessarily single ones? I think you talked about variants leading to being tall but each adding a mm but I could see that certain combinations add much more and individually a variant...

I was wondering if we could do something from the forum - I will think about this a bit further. The issue is that researchers still use HADS as a meaurement instrument particularly Crawley (if I remember correctly) and things like PACE used it.

What Snaith seems to be saying is that HADS was designed to tell the difference between anxiety and depression rather than measure some general health notions. For this to be the case the underlying latent structures with the questionnaire would need to clearly show a separation when applied to...

Perhaps we could survey patients and ask what they associate the question answers with to see the reasons responses would change with ill/not ill rather than depression/not depression.

It is also worth reading the questions especially the depression ones - the answers are my guesses over potential reasons but they say there are different reasons for appearing depressed on the HADS scale than actually being depressed! "I still enjoy the things I used to enjoy" - No I am too...

Coyne called for HADS to be abandoned a while ago since the results were very inconsitent. Some references here: https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/6774405/Coyne_2012_J_Psychosom_Res.pdf https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/6780761/Coyne_2012_J_Psychosom_Res_2.pdf I think this is...

I think it is worth saying that sample sizes are typically based on power calculations and by looking at the experience of other studies. I am sure that the numbers here will have been done in this way.

Its worth reminding people that Aylward was the one getting funding for PACE from the DWP and I think was involved in the trial stering group.

Because they only looked at trials that reported harm (i.e. PACE) and they dismissed the reported issues as unrelated to GET. We should remember that Crawley used Cochranes safety claims to justify her GET trial on children claiming the looked at numbers from all the trials even thought they...

No I think I wasn't clear - I'm also finding it hard to function in the heat.