Research bias in ME/CFS

From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Revision as of 02:20, October 6, 2019 by Pyrrhus (talk | contribs) (c/e)

Research in every field deals with bias. Research into myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome faces specific kinds of bias issues as it navigates significant gaps in scientific knowledge and several opposing viewpoints.[citation needed]

Emphasis on randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews[edit | edit source]

Following an Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) model gives greater weight to systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials.[1]

PACE trial[edit | edit source]

Davenport et al. (2018) state the lack of randomized controlled trials in ME/CFS research mean that an evidence-based model can be unduly influenced by a very small number of studies, for example the PACE trial found that treating ME/CFS with graded exercise therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy did not result in clinically significant improvements - but this trial heavily influenced the clinical use of those treatments.[1] The PACE trial was so problematic that it was used an the example for Prof. Bruce Levin's presentation How Not To Conduct A Randomized Clinical Trial, and The Lancet received open letters signed by over 100 people, including researchers and academics, calling for the trial to be retracted.

Cochrane systematic review[edit | edit source]

The highly influential Cochrane review of exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome was also found to have significant flaws.

Prevalence[edit | edit source]

Bias recognition[edit | edit source]

Geraghty et al. (2019) looked at evidence behind the popular cognitive behavioral model of ME/CFS, and found that a number of research papers contained significant evidence that did not support the model combined with contradictory abstracts or conclusions at odds with the authors' results,[2] and notable selective interpretation of evidence, such as ignoring any contradictory research.[2]

Sonia Lee (PhD, University of Sydney) assessed research waste in ME/CFS by comparing the PACE trial with two cellular trials, finding that "selective reporting", an indicator of research waste, was greater in the PACE trial; however this paper (2017) was not peer-reviewed.[3]

Nacul et al. (2017) discussed the effects of selection bias, highlighting how psychosocial/biopsychosocial studies frequently used the broadest diagnostic criteria - the Oxford criteria - and did not break results down by subgroup. The use of the Oxford criteria lead to a 100-fold increase in disease prevalence compared to the Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC); with 14 out of 15 patients meeting the Oxford criteria typically failing to meet the Canadian Consensus Criteria for ME/CFS.[4]

Notable studies[edit | edit source]

  • 1982, Suffering and the Social Construction of Illness: The Delegitimation of Illness Experience in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome[5] (Abstract)
  • 2017, How have selection bias and disease misclassification undermined the validity of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome studies?[4] (Full text)

Articles and blogs[edit | edit source]

Possible causes[edit | edit source]

See also[edit | edit source]

Learn more[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Davenport, Todd E; Stevens, Staci R; VanNess, J Mark; Stevens, Jared; Snell, Christopher R (July 17, 2018). "Checking our blind spots: current status of research evidence summaries in ME/CFS". British Journal of Sports Medicine: 1–2. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099553. ISSN 0306-3674.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Geraghty, Keith; Jason, Leonard; Sunnquist, Madison; Tuller, David; Blease, Charlotte; Adeniji, Charles (January 1, 2019). "The 'cognitive behavioural model' of chronic fatigue syndrome: Critique of a flawed model". Health Psychology Open. 6 (1): 2055102919838907. doi:10.1177/2055102919838907. ISSN 2055-1029.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Lee, Sonia (May 7, 2017). "Research Waste in ME/CFS". bioRxiv: 133926. doi:10.1101/133926.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Nacul, Luis; Lacerda, Eliana M; Kingdon, Caroline C; Curran, Hayley; Bowman, Erinna W (March 1, 2017). "How have selection bias and disease misclassification undermined the validity of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome studies?". Journal of Health Psychology: 1359105317695803. doi:10.1177/1359105317695803. ISSN 1359-1053. PMC 5581258. PMID 28810428.
  5. Ware, Norma C. (December 1992). "Suffering and the Social Construction of Illness: The Delegitimation of Illness Experience in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome". Medical Anthropology Quarterly. 6 (4): 347–361. doi:10.1525/maq.1992.6.4.02a00030. ISSN 0745-5194.
  6. Goudsmit, Ellen M; Stouten, Bart; Howes, Sandra (October 5, 2005). "Editorial bias in the Lancet". www.axfordsabode.org.uk. ME Research Online. Retrieved April 20, 2019. Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  7. Goudsmit, Ellen M.; Stouten, Bart (2011). "Editorial bias in the British Medical Journal". Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. 12 (4): 47–59. Retrieved January 23, 2019. Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  8. Goudsmit, Ellen M; Howes, Sandra (2017), "Bias, misleading information and lack of respect for alternative views have distorted perceptions of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and its treatment", Journal of Health Psychology, 22 (9): 1159-1167, doi:10.1177/1359105317707216
  9. Blease, Charlotte; Geraghty, Keith J. (September 2018). "Are ME/CFS Patient Organizations "Militant"? : Patient Protest in a Medical Controversy" (PDF). Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 15 (3): 393–401. doi:10.1007/s11673-018-9866-5. ISSN 1176-7529. PMID 29971693.
  10. Edwards, Jonathan (March 28, 2017). "PACE team response shows a disregard for the principles of science". Journal of Health Psychology. 22 (9): 1155–1158. doi:10.1177/1359105317700886. ISSN 1359-1053. The PACE trial of cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis has raised serious questions about research methodology. An editorial article by Geraghty gives a fair account of the problems involved, if anything understating the case. The response by White et al. fails to address the key design flaw, of an unblinded study with subjective outcome measures, apparently demonstrating a lack of understanding of basic trial design requirements. The failure of the academic community to recognise the weakness of trials of this type suggests that a major overhaul of quality control is needed.
  11. Shepherd, Charles (October 12, 2017). "MEA Review: The SMILE trial – a lesson in how not to conduct clinical trials in people with ME/CFS". ME Association. Retrieved April 21, 2019. Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)