FINE trial: Difference between revisions

From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
(4)
(5)
Line 13: Line 13:
*[http://www.meassociation.org.uk/2010/05/failure-of-fine-trial-comes-as-no-surprise-mea-responds/ Failure of FINE trial comes as no surprise’ – MEA responds to study results in British Medical Journal]
*[http://www.meassociation.org.uk/2010/05/failure-of-fine-trial-comes-as-no-surprise-mea-responds/ Failure of FINE trial comes as no surprise’ – MEA responds to study results in British Medical Journal]
*Add to FINE page https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/05/20/plos-correction-removes-previously-available-anonymised-patient-clinical-trial-data/
*Add to FINE page https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/05/20/plos-correction-removes-previously-available-anonymised-patient-clinical-trial-data/
==Consent Form==
*Add FINE consent form http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/11.4.16-Mitchell-Response-consent-form-version3-MREC-2460904.pdf


==Investigators==
==Investigators==

Revision as of 03:07, May 25, 2016

The FINE trial[1] was a study examining treatments for ME/CFS. It is considered to be the 'sister' to the PACE trial.

Funding[edit | edit source]

Results[edit | edit source]

Sam Carter applied the criteria from a PACE trial study to the data from the FINE trial and questioned whether the recovery rates in the PACE study had been inflated by as much as six-fold as a result.[2]

Criticism[edit | edit source]

Consent Form[edit | edit source]

Investigators[edit | edit source]

Alison Wearden, Riste L, Dowrick C, Chew-Graham C, Bentall RP, Richard Morriss, Peters S, Dunn G, Richardson G, Lovell K, Powell P.

Learn more[edit | edit source]

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]