The PACE trial of treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome: a response to WILSHIRE et al

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) is chronic disabling illness characterized by severe disabling fatigue, typically made worse by exertion. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) is thought by some to be the same disorder (then referred to as CFS/ME) and by others to be different. There is an urgent need to fi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC Psychology 2019-03, Vol.7 (1), p.15-15, Article 15
Main Authors: Sharpe, Michael, Goldsmith, Kim, Chalder, Trudie
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Behavior modification
Behavioral medicine
Care and treatment
Chronic diseases
Chronic fatigue syndrome
Clinical trial
Clinical trials
Clinical Trials as Topic
Cognition & reasoning
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Cognitive behaviour therapy
Comparative analysis
Correspondence
Encephalomyelitis
Exercise Therapy
Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic - psychology
Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic - therapy
Graded exercise therapy
Humans
Medical research
Methodology
Patients
Physical therapy
Statistical analysis
Systematic review
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) is chronic disabling illness characterized by severe disabling fatigue, typically made worse by exertion. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) is thought by some to be the same disorder (then referred to as CFS/ME) and by others to be different. There is an urgent need to find effective treatments for CFS. The UK Medical Research Council PACE trial published in 2011 compared available treatments and concluded that when added to specialist medical care, cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy were more effective in improving both fatigue and physical function in participants with CFS, than both adaptive pacing therapy and specialised medical care alone. In this paper, we respond to the methodological criticisms of the trial and a reanalysis of the trial data reported by Wilshire at al. We conclude that neither the criticisms nor the reanalysis offer any convincing reason to change the conclusions of the PACE trial.
ISSN:2050-7283
2050-7283
DOI:10.1186/s40359-019-0288-x