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

looks like the part of the project that might have actually had some interesting results never happened

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT02499302?V_1=View

 

Ah, that will be the objective measures then

 

Retraction Watch: BMJ journal retracts, replaces study on chronic fatigue in children

Article quotes @dave30th

The article quotes the retraction notice, but the link to it doesn't work.

 

Something a bit murky going on there.
No doubt the sleuths will identify what really went on.

 

The retraction note states according to Retraction Watch's article:

- We undertook a thorough internal review of the original manuscript, the peer review and the editorial process to understand whether and how this had happened. We identified a mistake in the editorial process which led to this misrepresentation of the research that was undertaken.

- We acknowledge that this was not due to error on behalf of the authors. In line with the Committee on Publication Ethics’ Retraction Guidelines we decided to pursue the option to retract and republish. With the authors’ agreement, we invited the authors to resubmit their research written up as originally undertaken. This has undergone editorial and peer review as a new submission.

 

to state that the authors are not responsible for publishing a fully powered trial as if it were a feasibility study from the start is preposterous.

 

Both of these links, https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000620.abstract and https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000620.full, which are to the original paper have this note at the bottom of the main section of the webpage.

That link to the retraction doesn't work for me, saying

I also tried it in Sci hub and it doesn't work there either.

The full text of the original paper is still there to be read, so retraction doesn't seem to mean much at the moment.

 

Now this retraction needs to be pointed out to the ethics committee in Norway, since Wyller is the lead on the proposed Lightning Process study.

 

Have to wait on whether this is actual but this is a blatant misrepresentation of what happened. As for the matter of this being an error, when it was pointed out there was clear dismissal that there was an issue at all, despite glaring problems. So something else would be going on because they clearly have no qualms about making stuff up and misrepresenting everything they do.

The framing is odd: retract and replace. Those two things are mutually exclusive, so which is it? Also this is not something that should have multiple do-overs, it suggests a system that is thoroughly broken and essentially unable to deal with fact-checking when the original intent is political.

 

thanks for the clarification. And isn't Crawley also involved as an advisor?

 

I find it really difficult to imagine a scenario where the issues that were raised were the fault of the editors and not of the authors of the study. Would like to see the full explanation of what happened.

 

wait, which study was that? I don't remember seeing a qualitative study, or maybe I'm just addled from US election anxieties

 

Yes, this is what I was implying! Authors get proofs to read. If they found their study mischaracterised it is up to them to point that out.

It is hard to escape the impression that the editor is baking pork pies.

 

thanks. I'll see if Berkeley library can access it

 

Reviewer:
I struggle to understand from the aims of the study and the way the study is described whether this was intended as a feasibility study – i.e. to look at feasibility (can this be done?), acceptability (how do participants experience it?) and to give some indication of potential effect sizes to power a future larger scale trial, or whether this was intended as a fully powered trial. Throughout, I think this needs to be clarified for the reader and interpretations/conclusions drawn in light of what the aim was.

Author's response:
Thank you. We agree – this study should be regarded a feasibility study, and the manuscript has been rephrased accordingly

https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/bmjpo/4/1/e000620.reviewer-comments.pdf