Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
Research bias in ME/CFS
(section)
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Failure to retract, withdraw or correct flawed research == A number of journals plus [[Cochrane]], have published research which failed to meet their own standards, including clinical treatment trials of graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy for ME/CFS, and have then failed to retract some which could not be appropriately corrected in a way that met the journal standards. A significant number of editorial corrections, expressions of concern or corrections by authors have been published, merged data from a successful feasibility study into a treatment trial; the journal's editor described the correction as "extensive".<ref>{{Cite journal | last = BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health | first = | authorlink = | date = 2019-10-01| title = Notice of correction and clarification: Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process in addition to specialist medical care for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial|url=https://adc.bmj.com/content/104/10/e4|journal=Archives of Disease in Childhood|language=en|volume=104|issue=10| pages = e4βe4|doi=10.1136/archdischild-2017-313375corr1|issn=0003-9888|pmc=|pmid=31296601|access-date=|quote=|via=}}</ref> Cochrane announced it would withdraw a systematic review of exercise as a therapy for CFS after a detailed complaint described its failure to meet Cochrane's own standards and incorrect use of the GRADE framework required by Cochrane - but then reversed this decision after the authors refused to agree to the withdrawal of the review. The Lancet responded to multiple open letters requesting an investigation into the PACE trial and an independent re-analysis of the data by refusing those requests and continued to do so after the full PACE trial data was released which showed that patient's six-minute walk test results had barely improved, and the 13% of those taking part in the trial met at least one of the "recovery" outcomes at the start of the trial due to the definition for recovery being lowered part-way through the trial.<ref name=":0" /> {{See also|Retractions, corrections and expressions of concern in chronic fatigue syndrome research|||||}}
Summary:
Please make sure your edits are consistent with
MEpedia's guidelines
.
By saving changes, you agree to the
Terms of use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 3.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
This page is a member of 4 hidden categories:
Category:All articles with unsourced statements
Category:Articles that need an image or photo
Category:Articles with unsourced statements from 2020
Category:Articles with unsourced statements from unknown year
Navigation
Navigation
Skip to content
Main page
Browse
Become an editor
Random page
Popular pages
Abbreviations
Glossary
About MEpedia
Links for editors
Contents
Guidelines
Recent changes
Pages in need
Search
Help
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special pages
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs