PACE Trial Participants – were they exploited?

Everything about PACE is untenable … Thank you peter

peterkempblog

Analysis and opinion by Peter Kemp MA

September 2016
[Emphases throughout are added]
This article follows-on from my Blog:

The PACE Trial ‘Normal Range’ – an Untenable Construct
https://wordpress.com/post/peterkempblog.wordpress.com/10

which analysed the PACE Trial authors’ justifications for discarding the Protocol Primary Outcome Measures and use of ‘Normal Range’ as a measure of efficacy for treatments.

 As a reminder, here is how ‘Normal Range’ compares with the Primary Outcome Measures which the PACE Trial authors’ discarded.  The chart is adapted directly from one published in The Lancet, with the addition of orange lines showing outcome thresholds. 

lancetsf36_pf_2016 And below is a table illustrating various interpretations of the ‘Normal Range’ SF36PF (Short Form 36 Physical Function subscale) threshold, showing that it is clinically meaningless, even to those that designed and employed it.

normalrangetable(White was the PACE Trial chief investigator, Bleijenberg and Knoop published a comment on the PACE Trial accompanying the PACE report…

View original post 2,689 more words

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: