Search results

New nightmare fuel.

No control group, huge amount of dropouts not counted as nonresponders, subjective outcome measure, no blinding... the usual BPS shit sandwich.

This analysis deviates from the intention to treat principle. They ignore the huge % of dropouts/missing data and use denominators of just those who completed the follow ups.

I wonder if anyone in the depression community is going to campaign for retraction or at least a corrigendum. This is as shocking as PACE but it affects many more people because depression is vastly more common than ME/CFS.

Ah I see. To be honest, the limited dataset that’s out there already following FOIA victory is enough to establish that the treatments don’t work.

Full data for what? The reanalysis is based on the original dataset which NIMH handed over.

Yes, the 35% remission rate includes passage of time, regression toward the mean, “placebo effect” and various biases. As there was no placebo control group, we have no idea how the 35% remission rate compares to doing nothing or howling at the moon or taking a sugar pill.

Raters were blinded and were administering the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. These blinded ratings were supposed to be used as the primary outcome. However, the investigators switched to an unblinded self-rated scale in their trial report. There was no placebo control group and the patients...

The largest and most impactful trial of depression of all time has now been reanalysed using individual participant data obtained from the NIMH. The STAR*D trial was originally published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2006 and has amassed over 5,000 citations. It cost the US taxpayers...

Great letter @rvallee

Horrifying.

Who is he to make that determination that your life is shit? My life pre-ME/CFS wasn’t great by any means but it was my life and I’d like it back. The only life I get was robbed from me by this stupid illness.

If they believed their own findings, they would. Instead we have this ridiculous paper with 14 ME/CFS patients and controls of no description.

Ummm, what? No it doesn’t.

They get combined if deemed similar enough.

No

IPD meta analysis just means analysing individual participant data from original studies (pooling them all together) instead of the usual meta-analytic approach of using summary data from published studies (eg means, standard deviations) to pool the results of many studies. It can’t overcome the...

They’ve been going on about this IPD meta analysis of exercise since we were still on the other forum. It’s going to suffer from the same methodological issues as conventional meta analysis based on summary data. IPD makes no difference. I’d say they’ll probably just submit it to a regular...

I’d say they probably sent this to the BMJ first and got fobbed off so they ended up in JNNP. It’s a good journal but it doesn’t have the same wide readership or impact.

There are no treatments, let alone personalised treatments.