FINE trial Step test data released in 2017

Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I'm sure we must already have discussed this, but I've not found the thread/discussion so thought that I'd risk to problem of a re-post (sorry mods).

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cfs_fine_what_story_does_the_obj_2#incoming-1026066

Woolie's summary of FINE:

The Fine trial (PACE’s ‘sister study’, looked at more severe patients):
Nurse led, home based self help treatment for patients in primary care with chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial.
Wearden AJ, Dowrick C, Chew-Graham C, Bentall RP, Morriss RK, Peters S, Riste L, Richardson G, Lovell K, Dunn G.
BMJ. 2010 Apr 23;340:c1777.
link to article The published study protocol is available here.
This trial has been called the “sister trial” to PACE. Nearly 300 individuals diagnosed with Oxford-defined CFS (which considers only fatigue) took part, including a sizeable number described as “non-ambulatory”. The group was, on average, more severely affected than the group that participated in PACE. Participants were assigned to three groups: a) pragmatic rehabilitation; b) supportive listening; or c) medical treatment as usual. The two therapy programmes consisted of 10 sessions and were delivered at home by general nurses. At the completion of the programmes, self-assessed fatigue – but not physical function - was marginally better for the pragmatic rehabilitation group than for the other two groups. However, at the trial’s primary endpoint which was a year later, there were no longer any significant group differences.
A 2015 paper attempted to explore the psychological factors that predicted improvement at the primary endpoint (which is puzzling, given that the trial did not yield any reliable treatment effects).This also reported that there were no group differences on an objective measure of fitness (based on the step test).
Click to expand...

As Woolie says, they did eventually release their null results for this anyway so the data might not reveal anything much, but I thought it could be of interest to someone here.
 
Andy said:
This was the only FINE trial thread I could find - I wanted to post this little exchange.



Richard Bentall being an author of the FINE trial, which incidentally is open access here, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2859122/
Click to expand...

upload_2020-6-9_20-54-20.png
I thought: What! A scientist who queries the meaning of an objective outcome?

Then I see:
upload_2020-6-9_20-56-38.png

Just reinforces my sense that many (not all!) psyche scientists live in some sort of alien universe, where different natural laws seem to apply.
 
Apparently (according to Richard Bentall) I'm profoundly ignorant as I believe that a lack of patient blinding can lead to response biases when patients talk to assessors and this bias reverts to the mean at long term followups.

Richard Bentall is in the camp that believes that unblinded trials combined with subjective outcome measures are credible because he hasn't realised that isn't the best that they can do.
 
Snow Leopard said:
Apparently (according to Richard Bentall) I'm profoundly ignorant as I believe that a lack of patient blinding can lead to response biases when patients talk to assessors and this bias reverts to the mean at long term followups.

Richard Bentall is in the camp that believes that unblinded trials combined with subjective outcome measures are credible because he hasn't realised that isn't the best that they can do.
Click to expand...
In other news I just printed myself a winning lotto ticket and demand, DEMAND, that it be honored and anyone who suggests I may have been biased in printing myself a winning lotto ticket is a vexatious anti-science bigot.

I have also awarded myself a PhD in Excellence. I wrote the entire program. I also run the entire program. I wrote all the tests and exams. I graded all the exams and formed an excellent PhD review committee, I am quoted as saying so. I scored perfectly, obviously. Anyone who alleges that I am biased in awarding myself a PhD in Excellence is obviously profoundly ignorant of the fact that this I simply prefer this outcome and this is now a valid peer-reviewed argument against any criticism.

If you refuse to call me Dr Excellent I will scream about being silenced from the world's loudest megaphone.
 
rvallee said:
In other news I just printed myself a winning lotto ticket and demand, DEMAND, that it be honored and anyone who suggests I may have been biased in printing myself a winning lotto ticket is a vexatious anti-science bigot.

I have also awarded myself a PhD in Excellence. I wrote the entire program. I also run the entire program. I wrote all the tests and exams. I graded all the exams and formed an excellent PhD review committee, I am quoted as saying so. I scored perfectly, obviously. Anyone who alleges that I am biased in awarding myself a PhD in Excellence is obviously profoundly ignorant of the fact that this I simply prefer this outcome and this is now a valid peer-reviewed argument against any criticism.

If you refuse to call me Dr Excellent I will scream about being silenced from the world's loudest megaphone.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this :rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom