RCT of online continuing education for health professionals to improve the management of chronic fatigue syndrome: protocol (2017) Lloyd, Barry

This looks annoying and worthless: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/5/e014133

Wow, they've really taken the time to understand this straw-man of why patients are concerned about the promotion of CBT/GET:

I'm mainly posting this because it says:

I'm not sure that this organisation would want to fund worthless research:

https://www.eqt.com.au/~/media/equi...national-medical-program-guidelines.pdf?la=en

I wondered if it could be worth having an Australian contact them about the real reasons people are concerned about the way CBT/GET are promoted? Contact form for those running the trust: http://www.eqt.com.au/contactus

Anyone got any views? Maybe having Cochrane promoting CBT/GET would be a big problem to overcome?

 

Keith Geraghty was one of the reviewers. The review history is 39 pages, though there is probably some duplication where the reviewers make the points and then the authors reiterate to reviewer points and then respond.
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/7/5/e014133.reviewer-comments.pdf

 

With the looming collapse of PACE, Lloyd appears to be trying to prop up his taxpayer-funded empire of quackery with dubious research of his own.

As for the Mason Foundation (who funded this rubbish), a lot of Australian patients (and perhaps even some local ME advocacy organisations) contacted them to complain but were brushed off.

 

Keith is the second reviewer p3-8 and makes some excellent points. Not a surprise.