CBT combined with music therapy for chronic fatigue following Epstein-Barr virus infection in adolescents: a feasibility study, 2020, Wyller et al

https://twitter.com/user/status/1318937709294084097

 

So who was this reviewer suggesting that the study should be viewed as 'feasibility' and what was the motivation? It sounds like someone with an agenda to sell the feasibility concept.

 

Reviewer name: Maria Loades

Institution and Country: University of Bath, UK

Competing interests: None declared.

 

Exactly. Their response is evidence of research misconduct. That was not an editorial oversight. If your authors lie, that's on them.

 

I forget but I rather suspect she is heavily involved in the 'feasibility' bandwagon.

 

Yes, but the whole concept of 'feasibility trial' is crap (as David would say).

 

She has published papers with Chalder and Crawley on CFS: https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/persons/maria-loades/publications/

PS: she has 17 papers published in 2020 already.

 

Yes, But she does not seem to be in the middle of the feasibilityfest.

I see from Virology blog that David has been through all this with a fine toothed comb. I have not been paying attention.

But it's the same old story.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1318970688414285831

 

I'd be interested if you could clarify that please. In my world of engineering feasibility studies sometimes make sense when wanting to assess if an idea is worth further researching/developing, and if it is, helping convince the bean counters it is worth their while stumping up the cash to do so.

Why is that so different in the world of medical trials?

 

Or maybe both are to blame?

The 1st version of the submitted manuscript's title was "... an exploratory randomized trial".
https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/bmjpo/4/1/e000620.draft-revisions.pdf

But in the peer review history provided by the journal, they don't display the original title; the first submission is listed already with the title "....a feasiblity study"
https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/bmjpo/4/1/e000620.reviewer-comments.pdf

It's odd in many ways: That a reviewer needs to explain to the authors what a feasibility study is -- when the title includes that it's an "exploratory randomized trial"; and that the part of the title indicating the nature of the research could just be changed etc.

edit: typo (exploratory)
& clarity (title "includes")

 

Exactly. She was asking for clarification because what they wrote was a muddle. She wasn't asking them to lie.

 

yes, of course--the journal needs to make basic checks and they're at fault also. What I meant was that you can't blame the journal for lies told by authors.

 

It's longish story but to simplify.

Feasibility studies are part and parcel of all sorts of research, especially when dealing with inanimate matter.
But
The 'feasibilityfest' we have been seeing in Bristol, and a centre in London that majors in feasibility studies (maybe King's) consists of trials that ought to be properly powered and controlled and sent to ethics committees that manage to be few or none of these things because they are just 'feasibility' studies. And the policy is deliberate if covert. The one that comes to mind is the one that had 100 patients - which you cannot possibly need to judge whether you would get any patients - that was morphed into a so called prospective trial with a few gerrymandering to make sure it got the right result.

If you like in this case 'feasibility' is a term of art (or subterfuge). Another example is 'pragmatic trial' which again is not so much pragmatic as dodging quality control.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1318983873196400641

 

Just thought I'd mention that it seems people in medical research bend over backwards to avoid using a word like 'lie'.

I see problems with this culture, but I thought I'd mention it in case any incaution here could be a problem.

I've forgotten some of the details with this paper, but generally it's best for people to avoid talking about lying in CFS research unless they've got really clear supporting evidence imo.

 

i get your point. But when you present your fully powered trial as a feasibility study, I think it's fair to call that a lie.

 

I agree. I see little point in being English and sticking to niceties when people are walking all over the rules.
I am in medical research and would once not have used the word lie but times have changed dramatically. People are lying here and maybe more than one lot.
They are also doing it rather badly.