Adverse outcomes in trials of graded exercise therapy for adult patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, 2021, White & Etherington

[MSEsperanza]

Trial By Error: Journal Corrects “Highlights” Section of Professor White’s GETSET Follow-Up Paper

[2nd part about this thread's paper]

https://www.virology.ws/2021/06/30/...n-of-professor-whites-getset-follow-up-paper/

[...]
"Besides the issue of the GETSET follow-up study, I have also appealed to Professor Fiedorowicz about a second paper from Professor White. This one relates to the question of possible harms from GET. In a post earlier this month, I described how this paper misrepresented the state of the science on the intervention in the first sentence of the abstract.

"After posting the blog, I sent the following letter. I have not yet received a response about this concern."
[...]

 

[rvallee]

Is that supposed to be it?

Participants were no worse after graded exercise therapy than control interventions.

This is the "correction"? Which they specifically framed to misleadingly suggest no harm rather than no benefit? Which is obviously not supported and is not the issue and even less of a correction?

I mean I expected nothing but still, wow. These people have truly reached fatberg level of being full of it. There is truly nothing to salvage here, it's just bad faith for bad faith's sake.

 

[dave30th]

This is the "correction"?

No, the Highlights "correction" was in the GETSET paper. I included a separate item about the GET safety paper. That hasn't been corrected. I've revised the blog headline to make clear there are two separate items there.

 

[rvallee]

No, the Highlights "correction" was in the GETSET paper. I included a separate item about the GET safety paper. That hasn't been corrected. I've revised the blog headline to make clear there are two separate items there.

Ah, makes more sense. There are so many corrections to be made it's hard to follow.

 

[Lucibee]

I hadn't spotted, but it's just been published: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022399921001781

 

[Barry]

I hadn't spotted, but it's just been published: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022399921001781

Graded exercise therapy probably is safe when properly prescribed and supervised.

"probably" ?

This seems like another backtrack in line with the current trend. Previously they have always asserted it is safe if properly administered.

 

[dave30th]

And I had complained to the journal couple months ago about this sentence: "Graded exercise therapy (GET) is an effective treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but concerns have been raised about its safety."

it is completely unacceptable to assert as fact a point--"GET is effective"--which is the subject of international controversy and debate. Whatever Professor White might prefer, this is NOT an accurate reflection of the state of play. GET's effectiveness is contested, and any paper that does not acknowledge that had no business passing peer review and being published. Authors are expected to be honest in their literature reviews and in how they present the context for their research.

 

[Adrian]

Graded exercise therapy probably is safe when properly prescribed and supervised.

"probably" ?

This seems like another backtrack in line with the current trend. Previously they have always asserted it is safe if properly administered.

Its also a big leap to suggest that if GET were to be safe in a trial then it would be safe in clinics - the training and supervision will be very different especially with widespread role out.

 

[Amw66]

 

[Forbin]

How many people would get onboard an airplane after the pilot announces "It is my opinion that this plane is probably safe" ?

 

[chrisb]

"Graded exercise therapy (GET) is an effective treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but concerns have been raised about its safety."

That looks like a masterpiece of drafting. It does not specify the way in which it is effective. It leaves open the possibility that boosting profits of Swiss Re might be an area of efficacy.

 

[daftasabrush]

What's the conflict of interest statement

I hadn't spotted, but it's just been published: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022399921001781

What's the conflict of interest statement say on this?

I notice second author affiliation is non-academic and profit motivated...

J. Etherington b
b
Pure Sports Medicine, 12 Finsbury Square, London, UK

I see John Etherington is already advertising COVID-19 rehab and already has a CBE

Former role- NHS England as National Clinical Director for Rehabilitation

plus current president of Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine... who are a NICE ME/CFS stakeholder and a COVID-19 rehabilitation stakeholder.

https://puresportsmed.com/team/dr-john-etherington-cbe
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ng10091/documents/stakeholder-list
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng188/documents/stakeholder-list

Also interested by the lack of fellow academics publishing with White... he normally has a bunch of BPS followers as co-authors.

 

[Sly Saint]

didn't know where to post this.

The Listening Place is a volunteer based service: it has been set up with a wide range of on-going professional support and advice.

it appears to be a service for people with suicidal thoughts.

I'm not knocking the organisation but find it a bit perverse that Peter Denton White is on their advisory team.

Professor Peter White OBE
Advisory Team
Peter White is Emeritus Professor of Psychological Medicine at Queen Mary University of London. He was a consultant liaison psychiatrist at St Bartholomew’s Hospital and co-led the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) service there until his retirement in 2016.

He qualified in medicine at St Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College, and then trained in general medicine in Southampton, after which he received his psychiatric training at the Maudsley and St Bartholomew’s Hospitals.

Research interests have included illnesses affecting both mind and body and understanding the links between them. More recent studies have explored the factors leading to poor quality of life after cancer, and developing interventions to improve it.

https://listeningplace.org.uk/our-advisory-team/