PACE trial data

My memory is unreliable but isn't Peter White leading the ongoing follow up of the PACE study for QMUL? Presumably this means that QMUL are being deliberately disingenuous in their statement that White is retired. If he is available for this follow up, how is he not available to direct someone to access the original data? Also how can a meaningful follow up be undertaken if there is no access to the original data?

Is anyone one on sufficiently good terms with their MP to feed this scandal that QMUL have effectively allowed the loss of the data from a multimillion pound government funded study into the upcoming Westminster Hall debate? Given that QMUL have been fighting for years to prevent the sharing of this data they can not reasonably claim that they were unaware of potential problems accessing the data because of changes in their employment of the original researchers.
 
Adrian said:
With another FoI request by @Anna Wood QMUL claimed they would need to hire a statistician to perform the task and again the ICO believed them. Once data was released it took me less than 2 hours to work out the information and that included interpreting their recovery criteria and checking the way they had modified the Oxford criteria with additional thresholds (also making dinner and with the football on TV).

So I don't think their pronouncements are trustable but the ICO doesn't seem to ask questions.
Click to expand...

It's that decision which has been followed in this one.
 
From Professor Malcolm Hooper's "Magical Medicine" p254 and p255

http://www.margaretwilliams.me/2010/magical-medicine_hooper_feb2010.pdf

The “Invitation to join the PACE trial” leaflet assured participants of confidentiality: “The data and recordings we collect will be securely stored for 20 years after the end of the trial, for your protection and to follow good clinical practice (GCP). The same applies to other records gathered for our study, including your medical notes and the database holding the collected data from the trial. Your name, address and telephone number will be on only one database. This will be held securely at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, in London, and it will be used only to monitor recruitment. You will not be named in any published study results from our study”.


When the PACE Trial had been running for two years, the Participants’ newsletter (Issue 1, June 2006) reaffirmed that the trial data was safe: “The information is being entered onto a large and secure database, designed and maintained by an independent clinical trial unit at King’s College, London”. This seems to conflict with the “Invitation to join the PACE Trial” leaflet (see above), which states that the data will be held securely at St Bartholomew’s Hospital. "

Edit: Margaret Williams just said this to me -

If the data is “securely stored”, then it is accessible.

If QMUL have no-one to analyse it, then tax-payers have the right to have it analysed by someone not employed by QMUL.

The data is tax-payer’s property.
 
Last edited:
I call shenanigans.

The data (either whole or in part) should be held on their systems (there should also be backup(s)). If their IT support can't find it or extract it, then they might try mentioning it to the Computer Science department. A nice bit of real world experience for students to grapple with.

'it has effectively lost the means to locate and extract it because this requires specialist knowledge.'

Looool.

he was the only individual from QMUL with knowledge of the terminology and raw database to actually locate the information. Depending on what data is requested, it is possible that he could have provided some, but it does
not know if that was the case with the current request. It said he would have at least been able to confirm what was and was not held and what it consists of.
Click to expand...

looooool

erm, no. The raw database would be easy to find. Even if you don't know how to use or read the format it is in, it is easy to locate. I wonder if their IT department know that the University is calling them inept?
 
Peter Trewhitt said:
My memory is unreliable but isn't Peter White leading the ongoing follow up of the PACE study for QMUL? Presumably this means that QMUL are being deliberately disingenuous in their statement that White is retired. If he is available for this follow up, how is he not available to direct someone to access the original data? Also how can a meaningful follow up be undertaken if there is no access to the original data?
Click to expand...

Here's one page related to that: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and...ies/pace-10-year-follow-up-feasibility-study/

I wonder what is going on with that, and the other PACE papers that have still not been released.
 
Esther12 said:
Here's one page related to that: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and...ies/pace-10-year-follow-up-feasibility-study/

I wonder what is going on with that, and the other PACE papers that have still not been released.
Click to expand...

I would think that in the current climate, they would not really want to continue this study, or at least be very selective with their results..

From another angle, yes PDW has retired but AFAIK, is still alive and well. He appears to have the capacity to give lectures/advise insurance companies etc, so surely he'd be happy to assist his old Uni regarding this "landmark trial" if his knowledge is really needed.
 
Esther12 said:
We're still waiting for papers they said would be released, eg the paper on predictors, the LTFU paper with employment outcomes... what's happening with all that?
Click to expand...
Yea, wasn't this one of the reasons given for not releasing it? Because they wanted to publish further studies? How can they do this now without revealing that they have access to the data?

I wonder whether this is a win in a way. That they've at least given up on churning out more PACE BS.
 
I had an interesting conversation with a senior academic associated with Bart's/QMUL this week. He referred to Bart's being involve in an ME trial that was a 'complete disaster'. He and I were meeting in relation to some work involving critical evaluation of the quality of drug trials. I got the impression that PACE is now regarded as a huge academic embarrassment for QMUL. Despite the bravura I suspect that even White now realises that putting out more papers is just making him look more and more ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom