Trial By Error: Lead Author of Cochrane’s New Bias Guideline is LP Study Co-Author

http://www.virology.ws/2019/08/31/t...HSdGlPY6eRLzWlwmebmaJvuWbjqdSNZbAr7UdCFZJzNw4

 

You cannot make this stuff up.

 

No amount of randomisation impacts on the high risk of bias when using subjective measures in unblinded trials.

No matter how good or sophisticated your statistical analysis, if your data is subject to bias your results are worthless. Not sure this language is acceptable, but there is no way of getting around ‘Shit in, means shit out’.

This is nothing but a cynical attempt to lend spurious credibility to bad research.

 

Wait, what? I thought I was sufficiently jaded about the Fine and Fancy People, but Cochrane hiring someone who attempted to sell a pure scam (LP) as actual medicine? Credibility or shilling for scams, you can't have both.

 

Is this because that dude has first-hand experience with how bias works and is therefore an expert?

Does Cochrane know that LP literally entails standing on paper and shouting at it?

Is all this a realityTVshow and the writers are just experimenting with how much they can get away with until their audience has a problem with their suspension of disbelief?

...can someone please break the 4th wall now?

 

@dave30th Thank you very much for your post - dated my 71st birthday. What a great birthday present!

 

As I understand it randomisation is to avoid selection bias. Other forms of bias need other strategies to deal with them. Randomisation is just one important tool amongst a good many important tools needed for properly run trials; the integrity of a trial is presumably only as strong as the weakest link in the toolchain.

 

There is a very good reason for this I'm sure, as this link will help to clarify:

'PACE was not a "randomised, controlled trial" as stated by Chalder et al in their rapid response'

https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h227/rr-26

[my bold]

Which is why, as I understand, the 2011 PACE paper did not describe it as controlled:

"Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial"

 

Yes, I didn't want to laden my post with too much. I suspect there must have been rumblings between 2007 and 2011 that brought them up short. I've a vague recollection a reviewer maybe brought the issue up.

Which makes you think: If a £5M trial was funded on the basis of its protocol saying it would be a controlled trial, but was in fact implemented without being controlled, is that not in itself a gross misuse of public funds? The funding was for a controlled trial. Would PACE have got the funding if they had described it more accurately from the outset, as a "randomised trial" rather than a "controlled randomised trial"? It sounds perilously close to gaining financial advantage by deception.

@dave30th: Could there be any mileage in this latter point at all?

 

It is their job to know that, and they are responsible whether or not they bothered to find out.