More PACE trial data released

In future cases, would it be allowed under the FOI rules to include in any new request at least one of the previously released pieces of data, so that an alignment verification check could be run? Or even request all of the original data together with the new, so you would have a fully coherent superset of the original data set?

 

Not only should it be allowed, it should be mandatory. But in fact it should be mandatory for the authors not to play silly buggers and pretend that they don't have, somewhere, a single file with all the data in it, which is how everyone works, because it's simple and obvious. (People who have never seen scientific data are often surprised by just how simple it looks, unless it's coming from particle detectors at CERN, and even then, the main complexity is the number of rows.)

Of course, it's just about theoretically possible that there is no single-file copy of the data left, but at that point, the entire research team should hand back their PhDs and get jobs in McDonald's.

 

Many of us might think they should do anyway .

 

visualising the combination of uniform and customer interface skills ! lol

 

£5M. Biggest trial of its kind. Trial meeting notes show they planned for it. No excuses.

 

I assume missing cells are dropouts? Reasons for dropping out are still withheld?

Walking tests are abysmal. No wonder they dropped them entirely and pretended it wasn't important. There is so much variation in the initial walking tests. Is it walk as fast as you can? Or walk normally? If it's the latter then you have a natural ceiling of about 600360 and that makes it very misleading. A walk-as-fast-as-you-can could easily go over 1,000700. And it still fails. Pathetic.

Bit puzzled about the Oxford-caseness binary. Some participants are rated as no longer meeting Oxford criteria yet actually lowered on their walking test. So they must no longer have had any "unspecified fatigue" in the prior 6 months yet are no more functional. Shows how useless the criteria are.

What a joke this trial is. Sorry but something is massively wrong that this is actually considered serious research. A typical high-school science fair project is more serious than this. Smaller, cheaper, but definitely more rigorous. I can hardly express my disappointment in the entirety of the medical profession that this is actually taken seriously and not laughed out of the room. What tripe.

Screw it. Time to flex out some programming and do a bit of analysis.

 

I've had a very quick look.

The differences look alarming, I guess I'm going to have to do my own checks, but a few points: It does mostly seem to match up. The vast array of orange in the comparisons with SMC will be because the papers state the adjusted analyses and not the unadjusted analyses that Nick has done. We don't have access to the variables that would enable us to replicate their analyses unfortunately.

One thing I would like to know though is whether the APT group were scoring significantly higher on the depression rating for HADS. That they "mistranscribed" the data for this in the paper seems a tiny bit suspicious.

One of my initial criticisms of the original PACE paper was the lack of heterogeneity measures on the baseline data. So maybe the groups were less balanced than it appears.

 

And here's my summary of the variables, from earlier in this thread:

 

Even if they have provided the data in the same order as the Matthees data release, it is shockingly bad data management not to provide any fields on which to do an external check of any merge, such as trial arm. It shows they really don't care about the data. Makes me so cross.

 

Zero chance that the data provided to peer reviewers had those problems.

When there are no consequences to acting like an asshole, assholes will act to the maximum extent of being an asshole, and then some.

And so far the consequence to acting like assholes for the PACE gang has been in the form of awards, promotions, generous research funding and having their personal grievances amplified in international news coverage. So why stop now? The standard has been set that we are sub-human, so the people who should care about those things don't bother here.

 

I very much doubt that the peer reviewers saw any more data than was in the published study. It was fast-tracked - which means they had even less time to scrutinise it than normal (generally an overnight turnaround). And given that those reviewers were likely to be friends of the trial authors anyway...

 

Can someone explain the improvements to me? On the third tab.

 

No idea. You'll need to ask @sTeamTraen

 

Funny you should say that, I think setting up McPsych is the overall plan.