In their response to Geraghty, the PACE investigators state that they have “repeatedly addressed” the various methodological concerns raised about the trial. While this is true, these responses have repeatedly failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the trial’s very serious flaws. This commentary examines how the current response once again demonstrates the ways in which the investigators avoid acknowledging the obvious problems with PACE and offer non-answers instead—arguments that fall apart quickly under scrutiny.
GeraghtyK (2016) “PACE-Gate”: When clinical trial evidence meets open data access. Journal of Health Psychology22(9): 1106–1112.
2.
HawkesN (2016) Freedom of information: Can researchers still promise control of participants’ data?British Medical Journal354: i5053. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i5053 (accessed 14 January 2017).
WhitePDChalderTSharpeM, et al. (2017) Response to the editorial by Dr Geraghty. Journal of Health Psychology22(9): 1113–1117.
7.
WhitePDGoldsmithKAJohnsonAL. (2011) Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): A randomised trial. The Lancet377: 823–836.
8.
WhitePDGoldsmithKAJohnsonAL. (2013) Recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome after treatments given in the PACE trial. Psychological Medicine43(10): 2227–2235.
9.
WhitePDSharpeMCChalderT. (2007) Protocol for the PACE trial: A randomised controlled trial of adaptive pacing, cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise, as supplements to standardised specialist medical care versus standardised specialist medical care alone for patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis or encephalopathy. BMC Neurology7: 6.
10.
WilshireCKindlonTMattheesA, et al. (2016) Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior5(1): 43–56.