LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Stouten, Bart; Goudsmit, Ellen M; Riley, Neil (2011)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
The findings of the PACE trial seem impressive, but the discrepancy between the definitions of improvement in the protocol and paper requires an explanation. In the paper “clinically useful differences” were defined as 0·5 SD changes in fatigue or physical functioning compared with baseline. However, the criteria for improvement published in the trial protocol were much more demanding. Use of a cut-off score of 75 on the short-form 36 physical functioning subscale, as originally proposed, would halve the number of “recovered” patients. Moreover, consulting the normative data for the scale reveals that the mean score of 59 after both cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise improved a chronic fatigue syndrome patient’s physical functioning to the level of someone 40 years older than himself. Is this a case of “outcome reporting bias”?
  • No references.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article