Quick Thoughts

PACE-Gate: The Making of a Medical Scandal

An advance look at a forthcoming Editorial for a Journal of Health Psychology Special Issue on the PACE trial-A Medical Scandal.

Misconduct in an author’s nomination of reviewers for his manuscript

An author, Kjell Gundro Brurberg  appealed the rejection of his manuscript. He was offered an opportunity to nominate additional reviewers, but to ensure they did not have conflicts of interest. What happened next…

Global expert on distant and faith healing chaired PACE Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee

Paul Dieppe, the initial Chair of Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee for the PACE trial is also renowned as a “leading global voice in the understanding and advancement of energy/ spiritual healing.”

My peer review of a PACE investigators’ article that the authors refused to heed

OK, Michael Sharpe, I get it that 400 peer reviewed publications don't qualify me as a reviewer of your paper, I am just not seasoned enough. but could you show me what you look for in a reviewer worthy of evaluating your manuscript?

NICE guidelines are discrepant with meta analyses and based on political considerations: An exchange

Are NICE guidelines often based on political considerations and discrepant with the results of meta-analyses and other best evidence?

More signs the tide is turning: Vaughan Bell in The Lancet Psychiatry on routine data sharing

The PACE trial of cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome has been enormously destructive of the campaign for open, more trustworthy science in the UK. With clear conflicts of interest, the investigators of one of the largest psychotherapy trials ever switched scoring of some outcomes and suppressed other outcomes altogether […]

Patients writing about their health condition were abused by a peer reviewer and silenced by The BMJ

Should patients submitting manuscripts concerning health conditions provide proof of their diagnoses, such as medical records or letters from their physicians? Should The BMJ apologize to these patients and their academic collaborator co-authors, given that no such apology has been forthcoming from the Action Editor?

Breaking News: PLOS One issues Expression of Concern for PACE trial paper

The authors and Queen Mary University of London shared the data policy in place at the institution, however we consider that aspects of the existing framework impose limitations and conditions not aligned with our editorial policy.

Could I critically evaluate the published results of the PACE trial without the raw data?

The small amount of data from a clinical trial that was released and reanalyzed suggests that all the data from the trial should be publicly available.

Don’t bother to apply: PACE investigators issue guidance for researchers requesting access to data

Authors's proposed guidelines for sharing data are intended to protect them from reputational damage arising from reanalysis of their data.

Simon Wessely’s muddled views of the good psychotherapy trial: I. Misunderstanding control groups

Simon Wessely's continued praise of PACE chronic fatigue syndrome trial suggest he is out of touch with current standards for clinical trials.