A safe and effective micro‑choice based rehabilitation for patients with long COVID: results from a quasi‑experimental study 2023, Frisk et al

I was going to note something similar, but focusing on how on earth they can claim a change in the mean is significant when the 'n' number of respondents makes it clear they've lost a substantial number - who are likely to be those who don't want to go through another CPET due to illness being more severe - between 'baseline' and '3month' groups that they are comparing.

the 30sec sit to stand test:
baseline n=75 Mean (Std Dev) = 19.0 (6.5)

3month n = 68 Mean (Std Dev) = 22.6 (6.9)

Bit weird that they've managed to filter out approx 10% of participants and end up with a bigger standard deviation, but then when you think about the specificity of recruitment, nature of Long COvid and what a difference 3months makes if they are recruiting people who are defined as having it at 3months, and then the 'treatment' being apparently anything goes...


the V02 peak:
baseline n=77 Mean (Std Dev) = 30.8 (6.2)

3month n = 67 Mean (Std Dev) = 31.5 (6.4)

To me this is 'the one' because of what we all know about CPETs and what they do to those who have PEM. It's a bit strange that 2 more did this at baseline vs the sit to stand test, but hey. 10 out of 77 fewer people are included in their 'mean' at 3months. It is just laughable to use a mean rather than comparing the individuals to themselves at baseline?! And even then they've just proven that their treatment basically makes no difference to the measure that is probably most coercion-free

Just because a piece of research somehow is allowed to choose not to have a null hypothesis, does that really mean that when their results show that even with 3months for many to have naturally got better and having whittled out through coercion (non-believer) and harm/risk of harm etc 10 of these people then just doing another average to show the 'whittled group vs the non-whittled' average for this that isn't basically showing that null hypothesis proven?

I mean given they wouldn't publish if they caused deterioration is there anything else that could be as slam-dunk as 'but it makes no difference to the underlying' ergo 'null hypothesis proven' than this?


Weirdly... the 'Dyspnea 12' measure showed an increase in 'n' number of participants at 3months vs baseline from 68 to 71 - how is that allowed?
just roll them in with the rest?


And their sick leave 'data' goes from 39 participants 'in their mean average' at 'baseline' but only 23 ie only half (if it is the same people) counted in their mean 'at 3months'
How on earth - I'm sorry it isn't feasible - can you get around 70 (often more) participants to turn up and do a CPET or fill in pretty long questionnaires and then claim only 23 wanted/were able to do the online log of their sickleave? - A comparatively simpler, and more important task done at the same timing.

Well I'm normally caveated with accusations, but without an explanation I can anticipate that could be convincing I'm thinking something potentially significant happened there to deter or exclude those who had much sick leave from filling it in?

And after all, we've no way of knowing which of all these original people were the ones 'lost' or included for these as there seems little rhyme nor reason - at least when it is attrition over x months type design other BPS have used then you can see it's not someone appearing for one and not the other etc but this is ... confusing.

 

Co-author Marte Jürgensen claims she recovered from ME/CFS through the Lightning Process, and is/was also affiliated with Recovery Norway (vice president).

Makes me question how they went from the initial 120 patients screened for eligibility down to 83 as well. I believe the protocol stated motivation as part of the criteria.

edit:
After checking, it was not the Lightning Process, but a similar program.