Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for chronic fatigue and CFS: outcomes from a specialist clinic in the UK (2020) Adamson, Wessely, Chalder

Yes, if someone knows they are not very much worse, yet definitely more than a little worse, then it's something of a Hobson's choice. I agree they will very possibly go for being a little worse.

 

Ahhh!!! I’m feeling rather stressed after my parents forwarded me the following email they received from a doctor friend of theirs:

“Here it is as a PDF. Problems downloading, let me know. I hope it is useful. A quick perusal gives me the impression it's the real deal.
Remember, the fact that she has had CBT in the past is no guide to its present utility.”

The attached PDF was the Wessely/Chalder paper being discussed in this thread

I’ve suggested that my parents send their doctor friend a link to David Tuller’s blog about this paper. Thank goodness for David Tuller! And thank goodness for this forum and all the amazing work you wonderful people are doing. Seriously, I don’t know where I’d be without you all.

 

As they say in Australia: yeah, nah.

 

*shudder*

 

I've had a letter published in response to the Adamson et al article. It's called

‘Measuring improvement and deterioration in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: the pitfalls of the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire’

I just started a thread about it here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/measuring-improvement-and-deterioration-in-me-cfs-2020-kirke.18220/

 

Congratulations
Seems to be behind a paywall, but an amazing achievement nonetheless

 

Looks like the BPSers are out promoting this paper this week in a vain attempt to push back the tide.

Code:

https://twitter.com/ProfRobHoward/status/1359756904059305985

https://twitter.com/user/status/1359756904059305985


I can't see that tweet by Brendon Stubbs via the forum account, I don't know if he's done a "Greenhalgh" (mass blocking of accounts that may or may not disagree with them) or not.

 

I have submitted a commentary to this paper, back in October but it is still being reviewed, apparently.

 

The Canute study ...

 

The study:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0141076820951545

 

Yup. He went on a trolling spree a few months ago and ended up mass blocking many of us.

 

Not sure what it says about Howard that he hopes the NICE evidence review, completed several months ago, will take notice. The deadline has long passed. The attention to details is... not great, but definitely on brand.

 

They are so out of touch with reality it's astonishing. And these privileged professors have such a need to be victims when in a debate with sick patients.

 

Waiting list controls are a source of bias as not getting any treatment leads to resentment. A control for CBT could be a group with tea, cake and chat as often as the CBT sessions.

No one does it anymore, but there should also be a control group getting CBT who have not got ME either another illness or, say, newly retired whatever. Then of 5% of people with ME are satisfied with the treatment it would be obvious there is a problem if 60% of this group were satisfied.

It is also a good control for drop outs. They are always explained away as "difficulty with transport" or something else that does not relate to the treatment but if there are less in the healthy control group it makes it more likely that the treatment itself is at fault.

 

Trial by Error: Hughes-Tuller Comment of Wessely-Chalder CBT Study Rejected by Journal, Posted Here

 

The Science Bit: Apart from the sampling ambiguity, weak measurement, survivor bias, missing data, and lack of control group, the study wasn't that bad

 

I’m not at all surprised that the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine didn’t publish your response, but I enjoyed it very much. Thank you @dave30th and @Brian Hughes. I hope we see it in another journal soon, is that the intention?

 

Have you tried Journal of Health Psychology? (David F Marks).

just seen this:

not directly related but also interesting:

 

Well, I wasn't at all surprised they rejected it. It would be nice to get it published, but it would be somewhat unusual for an unrelated journal to publish a commentary on something they didn't publish.