Patients’ reanalysis sinks PACE’s “recovery” claims

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email

Patients and statisticians have used the recently released data from the PACE trial to show that cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy did not help patients in the study to recover.

Alem Matthees, an Australian patient who obtained the data after a two-year battle over his Freedom of Information request, applied the study authors’ own pre-planned analyses that they had abandoned after the trial had finished.

Working with independent statisticians and other patients with mathematical expertise, he showed that only 7% of the cognitive behavioural therapy group, 4% of the graded exercise group, and 3% of a no-therapy comparison group recovered. Differences between the groups were within chance variation, indicating no effect of the therapies.

PACE-recovery-graph

This contrasts starkly with the recovery rate of 22% in the therapy groups that was published by the study authors in the journal Psychological Medicine in 2013. In that paper, patients were classed as having recovered from their disability even if they became more disabled during the trial. The Lancet published a similar analysis in an earlier paper. Both journals have for years refused to correct the analyses.

Statistics professors Philip B. Stark of the University of California, Berkeley, and Bruce Levin of Columbia University co-authored the reanalysis report. Professor Levin commented that respect for The Lancet and Psychological Medicine had been “diminished worldwide” by their defence of the trial and that it would be appropriate to retract the flawed analyses.

Professor Vincent Racaniello has published the report on his Virology Blog, describing it as “an analysis that the authors never wanted you to see”. He said, “The results should put to rest once and for all any question about whether the PACE trial’s enormous mid-trial changes in assessment methods allowed the investigators to report better results than they otherwise would have had.” He called Alem Matthees’s persistence in obtaining the underlying data “heroic”.

[pullquote align=”left” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] Professor Simon Wessely summarised his overall reaction as, “OK folks, nothing to see here, move along please.”[/pullquote]

Patient, journalist and mathematician Julie Rehmeyer has written an article drawing attention to the new analyses. She said, “Problem is, the study was bad science. And we’re now finding out exactly how bad.” She said that critics of the trial had been painted as “unhinged crusaders” but that the new analyses showed that the PACE authors’ recovery claims had gone “up in smoke”.

She reported that the authors, and the editors of The Lancet and Psychological Medicine had all declined to comment for her article, but that Professor Simon Wessely, of the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists, had defended the trial in an email exchange with her. She said that he had refused to comment on the new recovery analyses but that he summarised his overall reaction as, “OK folks, nothing to see here, move along please.”

Carly Maryhew, a patient and co-author of the analysis report, said, “Given that our re-analysis of the data has shown a shocking difference in the claimed recovery rates, Wessely’s flippant dismissal is simply ludicrous. It has been proven now that the changes to the protocol had a huge impact upon the outcomes, and it’s demonstrating to the entire academic community that science requires constant scrutiny to keep it honest.”

Save
Save

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on google
Google+
Share on email
Email

2 thoughts on “Patients’ reanalysis sinks PACE’s “recovery” claims”

  1. Heartfelt thanks to Alem Matthees, who is indeed a hero of the the long battle for fair and proper treatment of people with ME/CFS.
    News of his current state of health, given this protracted and stressful fight on our behalf would be very welcome, if anyone is in a position to comment.
    I send him every good wish and deep gratitude.

  2. The study was flawed from the beginning, the researchers must have known this but prevented us from seeing the raw data and kept insisting that their research was sound. How can these people knowingly inflict more misery on a vulnerable group of people ? do they not have a conscience ?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest News

Sign petition To Fix ME/CFS tracking In US!

In August, we shared with you that we and six other ME/CFS organizations had submitted a proposal to the National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) to fix the coding of ME/CFS in the US International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CM). Today, we are writing with an update on that proposal and asking that you sign the

Read More »

NICE announces roundtable event to ensure implementation of ME/CFS guideline

NICE announced today that it will hold a roundtable in September as the next step in the publication of the ME/CFS guideline. The roundtable will include representatives from patient organisations and charities, relevant professional societies, NHS England and NHS Improvement, NICE and the guideline committee. It aims to, “better understand the issues raised and determine

Read More »

#MEAction & 6 ME Orgs Call for CDC to Change How it Tracks ME/CFS

Together with six other organizations, we have submitted a proposal to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to add myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) to the neurological chapter of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CM).  Today, ME/CFS does not exist in the US ICD-10-CM. Instead,  most US doctors assign the code for chronic fatigue

Read More »

Help keep our work going

We rely on donations from people like you to keep fighting for equality for people with ME.

Donate

Get actions alerts and news direct to your inbox

You can choose what you want to be kept up to date on.

Subscribe
Scroll to Top