How to get a flawed systematic review and meta-analysis withdrawn from publication: a detailed example

Cochrane normally requires authors to agree to withdraw completed reviews that have been published. This withdrawal in the face of resistance from the authors is extraordinary.

There is a lot to be learned from this letter and the accompanying documents in terms of Courtney calmly and methodically laying out a compelling case for withdrawal of a review with important clinical practice and policy implications.

mind the brain logo

Robert Courtney’s wonderfully detailed cover letter probably proved decisive in getting the Cochrane review withdrawn, along with the work of another citizen scientist/patient advocate, Tom Kindlon.

Cochrane normally requires authors to agree to withdraw completed reviews that have been published. This withdrawal in the face of resistance from the authors is extraordinary.

There is a lot to be learned from this letter and the accompanying documents in terms of Courtney calmly and methodically laying out a compelling case for withdrawal of a review with important clinical practice and policy implications.

Especially take a look at the exchanges with the author Lillebeth Larun that are included in the letter.

Excerpt from the cover letter below:

It is my opinion that the published Cochrane review unfortunately fails to meet the standards expected by the public of Cochrane in terms of publishing rigorous, unbiased, transparent and independent analysis; So I would very much appreciate it if you could investigate all of the problems I raised in my submitted comments and ensure that corrections are made or, at the very least, that responses are provided which allow readers to understand exactly why Cochrane believe that no corrections are required, with reference to Cochrane guidelines.

On this occasion, in certain respects, I consider the review to lack rigour, to lack clarity, to be misleading, and to be flawed. I also consider the review (including the discussions, some of the analyses, and unplanned changes to the protocol) to indicate bias in favour of the treatments which it investigates.

robert bob courtneyAnother key excerpt summarized Courtney’s four comments on the Cochrane review that had not yet succeeded in getting the review withdrawn:

In summary, my four submissions focus on, but are not restricted to the following issues:

  • The review authors switched their primary outcomes in the review, and used unplanned analyses, which has had the effect of substantially transforming some of the interpretation and reporting of the primary outcomes of the review;

  • The review fails to prominently explain and describe the primary outcome switching and to provide a prominent sensitivity analysis. In my opinion, the review also fails to justify the primary outcome switching;

  • The review fails to clearly report that there were no significant treatment effects at follow-up for any pooled outcomes in any measures of health (except for sleep, a secondary outcome), but instead the review gives the impression that most follow-up outcomes indicated significant improvements, and that the treatments were largely successful at follow-up;

  • The review uses some unpublished and post-hoc data from external studies, despite the review-authors claiming that they have included only formally published data and pre-specified outcome data. Using post-hoc and unpublished data, which contradicts the review’s protocol and stated methodology, may have had a significant effect on the review outcomes, possibly even changing the review outcomes from non-significant to significant;

  • The main discussion sections in the review include incorrect and misleading reports of the review’s own outcomes, giving a.false overall impression of the efficacy of the reviewed therapies;

  • The review includes an inaccurate assessment of bias (according to the Cochrane guidelines for reporting bias) with respect to some of the studies included in the review’s analyses.

These are all serious issues, that I believe we should not be seeing in a Cochrane review.

Digression: My Correspondence with Tom Kindlon regarding this blog post

James Coyne <jcoynester@gmail.com>

Oct 18, 2018, 12:45 PM (3 days ago)

to Tom

I’m going to be doing a couple of blog posts about Bob, one of them about the details of the lost year of his life (2017) which he shared with me in February 2018, shortly before he died. But the other blog post is going to be basically this long email posted with commentary. I am concerned that you get your proper recognition as fully sharing the honors with him for ultimately forcing the withdrawal of the exercise review. Can you give me some suggestion how that might be assured? references? blogs

Do you know the details of Bob ending his life? I know it was a deliberate decision, but was it an accompanied suicide? More people need to know about his involuntary hospitalization and stupid diagnosis of anorexia.

Kind regards

tom Kindlon
Tom Kindlon

Tom Kindlon’s reply to me

Tom Kindlon

Oct 18, 2018, 1:01 PM (3 days ago)

Hi James/Jim,

It is great you’re going to write on this.

I submitted two long comments on the Cochrane review of exercise therapy for CFS, which can be read here:

<https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/detailed-comment/en?messageId=157054020&gt;

<https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/detailed-comment/en?messageId=157052118&gt;

Robert Courtney then also wrote comments. When he was not satisfied with the responses, he made a complaint.

All the comments can be read on the review here:

<https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/read-comments&gt;

but as I recall the comments by people other than Robert and myself were not substantial.

I will ask what information can be given out about Bob’s death.

Thanks again for your work on this,

Tom

The Cover Letter: Did it break the impasse about withdrawing the review?

from:     Bob <brightonbobbob@yahoo.co.uk>

to:            James Coyne <jcoynester@gmail.com>

date:     Feb 18, 2018, 5:06 PM

subject:                Fw: Formal complaint – Cochrane review CD003200Sun, Feb 18, 1:15 PM

THIS IS A COPY OF A FORMAL COMPLAINT SENT TO DR DAVID TOVEY.

Formal Complaint

12th February 2018

From:

Robert Courtney.

UK

To:

Dr David Tovey

Editor in Chief of the Cochrane Library

Cochrane Editorial Unit

020 7183 7503

dtovey@cochrane.org

Complaint with regards to:

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Larun L, Brurberg KG, Odgaard-Jensen J, Price JR. Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; CD003200. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7

Dear Dr David Tovey,

This is a formal complaint with respect to the current version of “Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome” by L. Larun et al. (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; CD003200.)

First of all, I would like to apologise for the length of my submissions relating to this complaint. The issues are technical and complex and I hope that I have made them easy to read and understand despite the length of the text.

I have attached four PDF files to this email which outline the details of my complaint. In 2016, I submitted each of these documents as part of the Cochrane comments facility. They have now been published in the updated version of the review. (For your convenience, the details of these submissions are listed at the end of this email with a weblink to an online copy of each document.)

I have found the responses to my comments, by L. Larun, the lead author of the review, to be inadequate, especially considering the seriousness of some of the issues raised.

It is my opinion that the published Cochrane review unfortunately fails to meet the standards expected by the public of Cochrane in terms of publishing rigorous, unbiased, transparent and independent analysis; So I would very much appreciate it if you could investigate all of the problems I raised in my submitted comments and ensure that corrections are made or, at the very least, that responses are provided which allow readers to understand exactly why Cochrane believe that no corrections are required, with reference to Cochrane guidelines.

On this occasion, in certain respects, I consider the review to lack rigour, to lack clarity, to be misleading, and to be flawed. I also consider the review (including the discussions, some of the analyses, and unplanned changes to the protocol) to indicate bias in favour of the treatments which it investigates.

Exercise as a therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome is a highly controversial subject, and so there may be more of a need for independent oversight and scrutiny of this Cochrane review than might usually be the case.

In addition to the technical/methodological issues raised in my four submitted comments, I would also like you to consider whether there may be a potential lack of independence on the part of the authors of this review.

All of the review authors, bar Price, are currently working in collaboration on another Cochrane project with some of the authors of the studies included in this review. (The project involves co-authoring a protocol for a future Cochrane review) [2]. One of the meetings held to develop the protocol for this new review was funded by Peter White’s academic fund [1]. White is the Primary Investigator for the PACE trial (a study included in this Cochrane review).

It is important that Cochrane is seen to uphold high standards of independence, transparency and rigour.

Please refer to my four separate submissions (attached) for the details of my complaint regarding the contents of the review. As way of an introduction, only, I will also briefly discuss, below, some of the points I have raised in my four documents.

In summary, my four submissions focus on, but are not restricted to the following issues:

  • The review authors switched their primary outcomes in the review, and used unplanned analyses, which has had the effect of substantially transforming some of the interpretation and reporting of the primary outcomes of the review;
  • The review fails to prominently explain and describe the primary outcome switching and to provide a prominent sensitivity analysis. In my opinion, the review also fails to justify the primary outcome switching;
  • The review fails to clearly report that there were no significant treatment effects at follow-up for any pooled outcomes in any measures of health (except for sleep, a secondary outcome), but instead the review gives the impression that most follow-up outcomes indicated significant improvements, and that the treatments were largely successful at follow-up;
  • The review uses some unpublished and post-hoc data from external studies, despite the review-authors claiming that they have included only formally published data and pre-specified outcome data. Using post-hoc and unpublished data, which contradicts the review’s protocol and stated methodology, may have had a significant effect on the review outcomes, possibly even changing the review outcomes from non-significant to significant;
  • The main discussion sections in the review include incorrect and misleading reports of the review’s own outcomes, giving a.false overall impression of the efficacy of the reviewed therapies;
  • The review includes an inaccurate assessment of bias (according to the Cochrane guidelines for reporting bias) with respect to some of the studies included in the review’s analyses.

These are all serious issues, that I believe we should not be seeing in a Cochrane review.

These issues have already caused misunderstanding and misreporting of the review in academic discourse and publishing. (See an example of this below.)

All of the issues listed above are explained in full detail in the four PDF files attached to this email. They should be considered to be the basis of this complaint.

For the purposes of this correspondence, I will illustrate some specific issues in more detail.

In the review, the following health indicators were used as outcomes to assess treatment effects: fatigue, physical function, overall health, pain, quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep. All of these health indicators, except uniquely for sleep (a secondary outcome) demonstrated a non-significant outcome for pooled treatment effects at follow-up for exercise therapy versus passive control. But a reader would not be aware of this from reading any of the discussion in the review. I undertook a lengthy and detailed analysis of the data in the review before i could comprehend this. I would like these results to be placed in a prominent position in the review, and reported correctly and with clarity, so that a casual reader can quickly understand these important outcomes. These outcomes cannot be understood from reading the discussion, and some outcomes have been reported incorrectly in the discussion. In my opinion, Cochrane is not maintaining its expected standards.

Unfortunately, there is a prominent and important error in the review, which I believe helps to give the mis-impression that the investigated therapies were broadly effective. Physical function and overall-health (both at follow-up) have been mis-reported in the main discussion as being positive outcomes at follow-up, when in fact they were non-significant outcomes. This seems to be an important failing of the review that I would like to be investigated and corrected.

Regarding one of the points listed above, copied here:

“The review fails to clearly report that there were no significant treatment effects at follow-up for any pooled outcomes in any measures of health (except for sleep, a secondary outcome), but instead the review gives the impression that most follow-up outcomes indicated significant improvements, and that the treatments were largely successful at follow-up”

This is one of the most substantial issues that I have highlighted. This issue is related to the primary outcome switching in the review.

(This relates to assessing fatigue at long-term follow-up for exercise therapy vs passive control.)

An ordinary (i.e. casual) reader of the review may easily be left with the impression that the review demonstrates that the investigated treatment has almost universal beneficial health effects. However there were no significant treatment effects for pooled outcome analyses at follow-up for any health outcomes except for sleep (a secondary outcome ). The lack of universal treatment efficacy at follow-up is not at all clear from a casual read of the review, or even from a thorough read. Instead, a careful analysis of the data is necessary to understand the outcomes. I believe that the review is unhelpful in the way it has presented the outcomes, and lacks clarify.

These follow-up outcomes are a very important issue for medical, patient and research communities, but I believe that they have been presented in a misleading and unhelpful way in the discussions of the review. This issue is discussed mainly in my submission no.4 (see my list of PDF documents at the bottom of this correspondence), and also a little in submission no.3.

I will briefly explain some of the specific details, as way of an introduction, but please refer to my attached documents for the full details.

The pre-specified primary outcomes were pooled treatment effects (i.e. using pooled data from all eligible studies) immediately after treatment and at follow-up.

However, for fatigue, this pre-specified primary outcome (i.e. pooled treatment effects for the combination of data from all eligible studies) was abandoned/switched (for what i consider to be questionable reasons) and replaced with a non-pooled analysis. The new unplanned analysis did not pool the data from all eligible studies but analysed data from studies grouped together by the specific measure used to assess fatigue (i.e. grouped by the various different fatigue questionnaire assessments).

Looking at these post-hoc grouped outcomes, for fatigue at follow-up , two out of the three grouped outcomes had significant treatment effects, and the other outcome was a non-significant effect. This post-hoc analysis indicates that the majority of outcomes ( i.e. two out of three) demonstrated a significant treatment effect , however, this does not mean that the pre-specified pooled analysis of all eligible studies would have demonstrated a positive treatment effect. Therefore switching outcomes, and using a post-hoc analysis, allows for the potential introduction of bias to the review. Indeed, on careful inspection of the minutia of the review, the pre-specified analysis of pooled outcomes demonstrates a non-significant treatment effect, for fatigue at follow-up (exercise therapy versus passive control)

The (non-significant) outcome of this pre-specified pooled analysis of fatigue at follow-up is somewhat buried within the data tables of review, and is very difficult to find; It is not discussed prominently or highlighted. Furthermore, the explanation that the primary outcome was switched, is only briefly mentioned and can easily be missed. Uniquely, for the main outcomes, there is no table outlining the details of the pre-specified pooled analysis of fatigue at follow-up. In contrast, the post-hoc analysis, which has mainly positive outcomes, has been given high prominence throughout the review with little explanation that it is a post-hoc outcome.

So, to reiterate, the (two out of three significant, and one non-significant) post-hoc outcomes for fatigue at follow-up were reported as primary outcomes instead of the (non-significant) pre-specified pooled treatment effect for all eligible studies. Two out of three post-hoc outcomes were significant in effect, however, the pre-specified pooled treatment effect, for the same measures, were not significant (for fatigue at follow-up – exercise therapy versus passive control). Thus, the outcome switching transformed one of the main outcomes of the review, from a non-insignificant effect to a mainly significant effect.

Furthermore, for exercise therapy versus passive control at follow-up, all the other health outcomes were non-significant (except sleep – a secondary outcome), but I believe the casual reader would be unaware of this because it is not explained clearly or prominently in the discussion, and some outcomes have been reported erroneously in the discussion as indicating a significant effect.

All of the above is outlined in my four PDF submissions, with detailed reference to specific sections of the review and specific tables etc.

I believe that the actual treatment effects at follow-up are different to the impression gained from a casual read of the review, or even a careful read of the review. It’s only by an in-depth analysis of the entire review that these issues would be noticed.

In what i believe to be a reasonable request in my submissions, i asked the reviewers to: “Clearly and unambiguously explain that all but one health indicator (i.e. fatigue, physical function, overall health, pain, quality of life, depression, and anxiety, but not sleep) demonstrated a non-significant outcome for pooled treatment effects at follow-up for exercise therapy versus passive control”. My request was not acted upon.

The Cochrane reviewers did provide a reason for the change to the protocol, from a pooled analysis to analyses of groups of mean difference values: “We realise that the standardised mean difference (SMD) is much more difficult to conceptualise and interpret than the normal mean difference (MD) […]”.

However, this is a questionable and unsubstantiated claim, and in my opinion isn’t an adequate explanation or justification for changing the primary outcomes; personally, I find it easier to interpret a single pooled analysis than a group of different analyses with each analysis using a different non-standardised scale to measure fatigue.

Using a SMD is standard practice for Cochrane reviews; Cochrane’s guidance recommends using pooled analyses when the outcomes use different measures, which was the case in this review; Thus i struggle to understand why (in an unplanned change to methodology) using a SMD was considered unhelpful by the reviewers in this case. My PDF document no.4 challenges the reviewers’ reason, with reference to the official Cochrane reviewers’ guidelines.

This review has already led to an academic misunderstanding and mis-reporting of its outcomes, which is demonstrated in the following published letter from one of the co-authors of the IPD protocol……

CMAJ (Canada) recommends exercise for CFS [http://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/7/510/tab-e-letters ]

The letter claims: “We based the recommendations on the Cochrane systematic review which looked at 8 randomised trials of exercise for chronic fatigue, and together showed a consistent modest benefit of exercise across the different patient groups included. The clear and consistent benefit suggests indication rather than contraindication of exercise.”

However, there was not a “consistent modest benefit of exercise” and there was not a “clear and consistent benefit” considering that there were no significant treatment effects for any pre-specified (pooled) health outcomes at follow-up, except for sleep. The actual outcomes of the review seem to contradict the interpretation expressed in the letter.

Even if we include the unplanned analyses in our considerations, then it would still be the case that most outcomes did not indicate a beneficial treatment effect at follow-up for exercise therapy versus passive control. Furthermore, one of the most important outcomes, physical function, did not indicate a significant improvement at follow up (despite the discussion erroneously stating that it was a significant effect).

Two of my submissions discuss other issues, which I will outline below.

My first submission is in relation to the following…

The review states that all the analysed data had previously been formally published and was pre-specified in the relevant published studies. However, the review includes an analysis of external data that had not been formally published and is post-hoc in nature, despite alternative data being available that has been formally published and had been pre-specified in the relevant study. The post-hoc data relates to the FINE trial (Wearden 2010). The use of this data was not in accordance with the Cochrane review’s protocol and also contradicts the review’s stated methodology and the discussion of the review.

Specifically, the fatigue data taken from the FINE trial was not pre-specified for the trial and was not included in the original FINE trial literature. Instead, the data had been informally posted on a BMJ rapid response by the FINE trial investigators[3].

The review analyses post-hoc fatigue data from the FINE trial which is based on the Likert scoring system for the Chalder fatigue questionnaire, whereas the formally published FINE trial literature uses the same Chalder fatigue questionnaires but uses the biomodal scoring system, giving different outcomes for the same patient questionnaires. The FINE trial’s post-hoc Likert fatigue data (used in the review) was initially published by the FINE authors only in a BMJ rapid response post [3], apparently as an after-thought.

This is the response to my first letter…

Larun
Larun said she was “extremely concerned and disappointed” with the Cochrane editors’ actions. “I disagree with the decision and consider it to be disproportionate and poorly justified,” she said.

———————-

Larun said:

Dear Robert Courtney

Thank you for your detailed comments on the Cochrane review ‘Exercise Therapy for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome’. We have the greatest respect for your right to comment on and disagree with our work. We take our work as researchers extremely seriously and publish reports that have been subject to rigorous internal and external peer review. In the spirit of openness, transparency and mutual respect we must politely agree to disagree.

The Chalder Fatigue Scale was used to measure fatigue. The results from the Wearden 2010 trial show a statistically significant difference in favour of pragmatic rehabilitation at 20 weeks, regardless whether the results were scored bi-modally or on a scale from 0-3. The effect estimate for the 70 week comparison with the scale scored bi-modally was -1.00 (CI-2.10 to +0.11; p =.076) and -2.55 (-4.99 to -0.11; p=.040) for 0123 scoring. The FINE data measured on the 33-point scale was published in an online rapid response after a reader requested it. We therefore knew that the data existed, and requested clarifying details from the authors to be able to use the estimates in our meta-analysis. In our unadjusted analysis the results were similar for the scale scored bi-modally and the scale scored from 0 to 3, i.e. a statistically significant difference in favour of rehabilitation at 20 weeks and a trend that does not reach statistical significance in favour of pragmatic rehabilitation at 70 weeks. The decision to use the 0123 scoring did does not affect the conclusion of the review.

Regards,

Lillebeth Larun

——————

In her response, above, Larun discusses the FINE trial and quotes an effect size for post-hoc outcome data (fatigue at follow-up) from the FINE trial that is included in the review. Her quoted figures accurately reflect the data quoted by the FINE authors in their BMJ rapid-response comment [3] but, confusingly, these are slightly different from the data in the Cochrane review. In her response, Larun states that the FINE trial effect size for fatigue at 70 weeks using Likert data is -2.55 (-4.99 to -0.11; p=.040), whereas the Cochrane Review states that it is -2.12 [-4.49, 0.25].

This inconsistency makes this discussion confusing. Unfortunately there is no authoritative source for the data because it had not been formally published when the Cochrane review was published.

It seems that, in her response, Larun has quoted the BMJ rapid response data by Wearden et al.[3], rather than her own review’s data. Referring to her review’s data, Larun says that in “our unadjusted analysis the results were similar for the scale scored bi-modally and the scale scored from 0 to 3, i.e. a statistically significant difference in favour of rehabilitation at 20 weeks and a trend that does not reach statistical significance in favour of pragmatic rehabilitation at 70 weeks”.

It is not clear exactly why there are now two different Likert effect sizes, for fatigue at 70 weeks, but we can be sure that the use of this data undermines the review’s claim that “for this updated review, we have not collected unpublished data for our outcomes…”

This confusion, perhaps, demonstrates one of the pitfalls of using unpublished data. The difference between the data published in the review and the data quoted by Larun in her response (which are both supposedly the same unpublished data from the FINE trial) raises the question of exactly what data has been analysed in the review, and what exactly is the source . If it is unpublished data, and seemingly variable in nature, how are readers expected to scrutinise or trust the Cochrane analysis?

With respect to the FINE trial outcomes (fatigue at 70 week follow-up), Larun has provided the mean differences (effect size) for the (pre-specified) bimodal data and for (post-hoc) Likert data. These two different scoring methods (bimodel and Likert), are used for identical patient Chalder fatigue questionnaires, and provide different effect sizes, so switching the fatigue scoring methods may possibly have had an impact on the review’s primary outcomes for fatigue.

Larun hasn’t provided the effect estimates for fatigue at end-of-treatment, but these would also demonstrate variance between bimodal and Likert scoring, so switching the outcomes might have had a significant impact on the primary outcome of the Cochrane review at end-of-treatment, as well as at follow-up.

Note that the effect estimates outlined in this correspondence, for the FINE trial, are mean differences (this is the data taken from the FINE trial), rather than standardised mean differences (which are sometimes used in the meta-analyses in the Cochrane review); It is important not to get confused between the two different statistical analyses.

Larun said: “The decision to use the 0123 [i.e. Likert] scoring did does [sic] not affect the conclusion of the review.”

But it is not possible for a reader to verify that because Larun has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that switching outcomes has had no effect on the conclusion of the review. i.e. There is no sensitivity analysis, despite the review switching outcomes and using unpublished post-hoc data instead of published pre-specified data. This change in methodology means that the review does not conform to its own protocol and stated methodology. This seems like a significant issue.

Are we supposed to accept the word of the author, rather than review the evidence for ourselves? This is a Cochrane review – renowned for rigour and impartiality.

Note that Larun has acknowledged that I am correct with respect to the FINE trial data used in the review (i.e. that the data was unpublished and not part of the formally published FINE trial study, but was simply posted informally in a BMJ rapid response). Larun confirms that: “…the 33-point scale was published in an online rapid response after a reader requested it. We therefore knew that the data existed, and requested clarifying details from the authors…” But then Larun confusingly (for me) says we must “agree to disagree”.

Larun has not amended her literature to resolve the situation; Larun has not changed her unplanned analysis back to her planned analyses (i.e. to use published pre-specified data as per the review protocol, rather than unpublished post-hoc data); nor has she amended the text of the review so that it clearly and prominently indicates that the primary outcomes were switched. Neither has a sensitivity analysis been published using the FINE trial’s published pre-specified data.

Note the difference in the effect estimates at 70 weeks for bimodal scoring [-1.00 (CI -2.10 to +0.11; p =.076)] vs Likert scoring [-2.55 (-4.99 to -0.11; p=.040)] (as per the Cochrane analysis) or -2.12 [-4.49, 0.25] (also Likert scoring) as per Larun’s response and the BMJ rapid response where the data was initially presented to the public.

Confusingly, there are two different effect sizes for the same (Likert) data; one shows a significant treatment effect and the other shows a non-significant treatment effect. This seems like a rather chaotic situation for a Cochrane review . The data is neither consistent nor transparent. The unplanned Cochrane analysis uses data which has not been published and cannot be scrutinised.

Furthermore, we now have three sets of data for the same outcomes. Because an unplanned analysis was used in the review, it is nearly impossible to work out what is what.

In her response, above, Larun says that both fatigue outcomes (i.e. bimodal & Likert scoring systems) at 70 weeks are non-significant. This is true of the data published in the Cochrane review but, confusingly, this isn’t true if we consider the data that Larun has provided in her response, above. The bimodal and Likert data (fatigue at 70 weeks) presented in the review both have a non-significant effect, however, the Likert data quoted in Larun’s correspondence (which reflects the data in the FINE trial authors’ BMJ rapid response) shows a significant outcome. This may reflect the use of adjusted vs unadjusted data, but it isn’t clear.

Using post-hoc data may allow bias to creep into the review; For example, the Cochrane reviewers might have seen the post hoc data for the FINE trial , because it was posted in an open-access BMJ rapid response [3] prior to the Cochrane review publication date. I am not accusing the authors of conscious bias but Cochrane guidelines are put in place to avoid doubt and to maintain rigour and transparency. Hypothetically, a biased author may have seen that a post-hoc Likert analysis allowed for better outcomes to be reported for the FINE trial. The Cochrane guidelines are established in order to avoid such potential pitfalls and bias, and to avoid the confusion that is inherent in this review.

Note that the review still incorrectly says that all the data is previously published data – even though Larun admits in the letter that it isn’t. (i.e. the data are not formally published in a peer-reviewed journal; i assume that the review wasn’t referring to data that might be informally published in blogs or magazines etc, because the review pretends to analyse formally published data only.)

The authors have practically dismissed my concerns and have not amended anything in the review, despite admitting in the response that they’ve used post-hoc data.

The fact that this is all highly confusing, even after I have studied it in detail, demonstrates that these issues need to be straightened out and fixed.

It surely shouldn’t be the case, in a Cochrane review, that we ( for the same outcomes ) have three sets of results being bandied about, and the data used in a post hoc analysis seems to vary over time, and change from a non-significant treatment effect to a significance treatment effect, depending on where it is quoted. Because it is unpublished, independent scrutiny is made more difficult.

For your information, the BMJ rapid response (Wearden et al.) includes the following data : “Effect estimates [95% confidence intervals] for 20 week comparisons are: PR versus GPTAU -3.84 [-6.17, -1.52], SE 1.18, P=0.001; SL versus GPTAU +0.30 [-1.73, +2.33], SE 1.03, P=0.772. Effect estimates [95% confidence intervals] for 70 week comparisons are: PR versus GPTAU -2.55 [-4.99,-0.11], SE 1.24, P=0.040; SL versus GPTAU +0.36 [-1.90, 2.63], SE 1.15, P=0.752.”

My second submission was in relation to the following…

I believe that properly applying the official Cochrane guidelines would require the review to categorise the PACE trial (White 2011) data as ‘unplanned’ rather than ‘pre-specified’, and would require the risk of bias in relation to ‘selective reporting’ to be categorised accordingly. The Cochrane review currently categorises the risk of ‘selective reporting’ bias for the PACE trial as “low”, whereas the official Cochrane guidelines indicate (unambiguously) that the risk of bias for the PACE data should be “high”. I believe that my argument is fairly robust and water-tight.

This is the response to my second letter…

———————–

Larun said:

Dear Robert Courtney

Thank you for your detailed comments on the Cochrane review ‘Exercise Therapy for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome’. We have the greatest respect for your right to comment on and disagree with our work. We take our work as researchers extremely seriously and publish reports that have been subject to rigorous internal and external peer review. In the spirit of openness, transparency and mutual respect we must politely agree to disagree.

Cochrane reviews aim to report the review process in a transparent way, for example, are reasons for the risk of bias stated. We do not agree that Risk of Bias for the Pace trial (White 2011) should be changed, but have presented it in a way so it is possible to see our reasoning. We find that we have been quite careful in stating the effect estimates and the certainty of the documentation. We note that you read this differently.

Regards,

Lillebeth

————————-

I do not understand what is meant by: “We do not agree that Risk of Bias for the Pace trial (White 2011) should be changed, but have presented it in a way so it is possible to see our reasoning.” …

The review does not discuss the issue of the PACE data being unplanned and I, for one, do not understand the reasoning for not correcting the category for the risk of selective reporting bias. The response to my submission fails to engage with the substantive and serious issues that I raised.

To date, nearly all the issues raised in my letters have been entirely dismissed by Larun. I find this surprising, especially considering that some of the points that I have made were factual (i.e. not particularly open to interpretation) and difficult to dispute. Indeed, Larun’s response even accepts the factual point that I made, in relation to the FINE data, but then confusingly dismisses my request for the issue to be remedied.

There is more detail in the four PDF submissions which are attached to this email, and which have now been published in the latest version of the Cochrane review. I will stop this email now so as not to overwhelm you, and so I don’t repeat myself .

Again, I apologise for the complexity. My four submissions , attached to this email as PDF files, form the basis of my complaint so I ask you to consider them to be the central basis of my complaint . I hope that they will be sufficiently clear.

I trust that you will wish to investigate these issues, with a view to upholding the high standards expected from a Cochrane review.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Please feel free to email me at any time with any questions, of if you believe it would be helpful to discuss any of the issues raised.

Regards,

Robert Courtney.

My ‘comments’ (submitted to the Cochrane review authors):

Please note that the four attached PDF documents form the basis of this complaint.

For your convenience, I have included a weblink to a downloadable online copy of each document, and I have attached copies to this email as PDF files, and the comments have now been published in the latest updated version of the review.

The dates refer to the date the comments were submitted to Cochrane.

  1. Query re use of post-hoc unpublished outcome data: Scoring system for the Chalder fatigue scale, Wearden 2010.

Robert Courtney

16th April 2016

https://sites.google.com/site/mecfsnotes/submissions-to-the-cochrane-review-of-exercise-therapy-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/fine-trial-unpublished-data

  1. Assessment of Selective Reporting Bias in White 2011.

Robert Courtney

1st May 2016

https://sites.google.com/site/mecfsnotes/submissions-to-the-cochrane-review-of-exercise-therapy-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/pace-trial-selective-reporting-bias

  1. A query regarding the way outcomes for physical function and overall health have been described in the abstract, conclusion and discussions of the review.

Robert Courtney

12th May 2016

[ https://sites.google.com/site/mecfsnotes/submissions-to-the-cochrane-review-of-exercise-therapy-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/misreporting-of-outcomes-for-physical-function ]

  1. Concerns regarding the use of unplanned primary outcomes in the Cochrane review.

Robert Courtney

3rd June 2016

https://sites.google.com/site/mecfsnotes/submissions-to-the-cochrane-review-of-exercise-therapy-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/primary-outcome-switching

References:

  1. Quote from Cochrane reference CD011040:

“Acknowledgements[…]The author team held three meetings in 2011, 2012 and 2013 which were funded as follows: […]2013 via Peter D White’s academic fund (Professor of Psychological Medicine, Centre for Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London).”

  1. Larun L, Odgaard-Jensen J, Brurberg KG, Chalder T, Dybwad M, Moss-Morris RE, Sharpe M, Wallman K, Wearden A, White PD, Glasziou PP. Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome (individual patient data) (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD011040.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011040/abstract

http://www.cochrane.org/CD011040/DEPRESSN_exercise-therapy-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-individual-patient-data

 

  1. Wearden AJ, Dowrick C, Chew-Graham C, et al. Fatigue scale. BMJ Rapid Response. 2010.

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/fatigue-scale-0 (accessed Feb 21, 2016).

End.

Cochrane complaints procedure:

http://www.cochranelibrary.com/help/the-cochrane-library-complaints-procedure.html

The PACE PLOS One data will not be released and the article won’t be retracted

PLOS One has bought into discredited arguments about patient consent forms not allowing sharing of anonymized data. PLOS One is no longer at the vanguard of open science through routine data sharing.

mind the brain logo

Two years have passed since I requested release of the PLOS One PACE data, eight months since the Expression of Concern was posted. What can we expect?

expression of concern-page-0

9 dot problem
Solving the 9-dot problem involves paying attention and thinking outside the box.

If we spot some usually unrecognized connections, we can see the PLOS One editors are biased towards the PACE investigators, favoring them over other stakeholders in whether the data are released as promised..

Spoiler: The PLOS One Senior Editors completed the pre-specified process of deciding what to do about the data not being shared.  They took no action. Months later the Senior Editors reopened the process and invited one of PACE investigators Trudy Chalder’s outspoken co-authors to help them reconsider.

A lot of us weren’t cynical enough to notice.

International trends will continue toward making uploading data into publicly accessible repositories a requirement for publication. PLOS One has slowed down by buying into discredited arguments about patient consent forms not allowing sharing of anonymized data.

PLOS One is no longer at the vanguard of open science through routine data sharing.

The expression of concern

actual display of expression of concern on PLOS article
Actual Expression of Concern on display on PLOS One article.

The editors’ section of the Expression of Concern ends with:

In spite of requests to the authors and Queen Mary University of London, we have not yet received confirmation that an institutional process compatible with the existing PLOS data policy at the time has been developed or implemented for the independent evaluation of requests for data from this study. We conclude that the lack of resolution towards release of the dataset is not in line with the journal’s editorial policy and we are thus issuing this Expression of Concern to alert readers about the concerns raised about this article.

This is followed by the PACE investigators’ response:

Statement from the authors

We disagree with the Expression of Concern about our health economic paper that PLOS ONE has issued and do not accept that it is justified. We believe that data should be made available and have shared data from the PACE trial with other researchers previously, in line with our data sharing policy. This is consistent with the data sharing policies of Queen Mary University of London, and the Medical Research Council, which funded the trial. The policy allows for the sharing of data with other researchers, so long as safeguards are agreed regarding confidentiality of the data and consent as specified by the Research Ethics Committee (REC). We have also pointed out to PLOS ONE that our policy includes an independent appeal process, if a request is declined, so this policy is consistent with the journal’s policy when the paper was published.

During negotiations with the journal over these matters, we have sought further guidance from the PACE trial REC. They have advised that public release, even of anonymised data, is not appropriate. As a consequence, we are unable to publish the individual patient data requested by the journal. However, we have offered to provide key summarised data, sufficient to provide an independent re-analysis of our main findings, so long as it is consistent with the REC decision, on the PLOS ONE website. As such we are surprised by and question the decision by the journal to issue this Expression of Concern.

Check out my critique of their claim to have shared data from the PACE trial with other researchers-

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

Nothing_to_DeclareConflict of interest: Nothing to declare?

 The PACE authors were thus given an extraordinary opportunity to undermine the editors’ Expression of Concern.

It is just as extraordinary that there is no disclosure of conflict of interest. After all, it is their paper is receiving expression of concern because of the authors’ failure to provide data as promised.

In contrast, when the PLOS One editors placed a discreet Editors Note in 2015 in the comment section of the article about the data not being shared when requested, it carried a COI declaration:

Competing interests declared: PLOS ONE Staff

That COI aroused the curiosity of Retraction Watch who asked PLOS One:

We weren’t sure what the last line was referring to, so contacted Executive Editor Veronique Kiermer. She told us that staff sometimes include their byline under “competing interests,” so the authorship is immediately clear to readers who may be scanning a series of comments.

Commentary from Retraction Watch

PLOS upgrades flag on controversial PACE chronic fatigue syndrome trial; authors “surprised”

Notable excerpts:

A spokesperson for PLOS told us this is the first time the journal has included a statement from the authors in an EOC:

This has been a complex case involving many stakeholders and we wanted to document the different aspects of the case in a fair manner.

And

We asked if the journal plans to retract the paper if the authors fail to provide what it’s asked for; the spokesperson explained:

At this time, PLOS stands by its Expression of Concern. For now, we have exhausted the options to make the data available in accordance with our policy at the time, but PLOS still seeks a positive outcome to this case for all parties. It is our intention to update this notice when a mechanism is established that allows concerns about the article’s analyses to be addressed while protecting patient privacy. PLOS has not given the authors a deadline.

Note: “PLOS did not given the authors a deadline.”

One of the readers who has requested the data is James Coyne, a psychologist at the University Medical Center, Groningen, who submitted his request 18 months ago (and wrote about it on the PLOS blog site). Although some of the data have been released (to one person under the Freedom of Information Act), it’s not nearly enough to conduct an analysis, Coyne told us:

This small data set does not allow recalculation of original primary outcomes but did allow recalculation of recovery data. Release of the PLOS data is crucial for a better understanding of what went on in that trial. That’s why the investigators are fighting so hard.

Eventually, Coyne began suggesting to PLOS that he would organize public protests and scientific meetings attended by journal representatives.

I think it is the most significant issue in psychotherapy today, in terms of data sharing. It’s a flagrant violation of international standards.

The Retraction Watch article cited a 2015 STAT article that was written by Retraction Watch co-founders Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. That article was sympathetic to my request:

If the information Coyne is seeking is harmful and distressing to the staff of the university — and that’s the university’s claim, not ours — that’s only because the information is in fact harmful and distressing. In other words, revealing that you have nothing to hide is much less embarrassing than revealing that you’re hiding something.

The STAT article also said:

To be clear, Coyne’s not asking for sex tapes or pictures of lab workers taking bong hits. He’s asking for raw data so that he can evaluate whether what a group of scientists reported in print is in fact what those data show. It’s called replication, and as Richard Smith, former editor of The BMJ (and a member of our board of directors), put it last week, the refusal goes “against basic scientific principles.” But, unfortunately, stubborn researchers and institutions have used legal roadblocks before to prevent scrutiny of science.

The PLOS One Editors’ blog  post.

The Expression of Concern was accompanied by a blog post from PLOS Iratxe Puebla, Managing Editor for PLOS ONE and Joerg Heber, Editor-in-Chief on May 2, 2017

Data sharing in clinical research: challenges and open opportunities

Since we feel we have exhausted the options to make the data available responsibly, and considering the questions that were raised about the validity of the article’s conclusions, we have decided to post an Expression of Concern [5] to alert readers that the data are not available in line with the journal’s editorial policy. It is our intention to update this notice when a mechanism is established that allows concerns about the article’s analyses to be addressed while protecting patient privacy.

This statement seems to suggest that the ball is in the PACE investigators’ court and that PLOS One editors are prepared to wait. But reading the rest of the blog post, it becomes apparent that PLOS One is wavering on the data sharing policy

Current challenges and opportunities ahead

During our follow up it became clear that there is little consensus of opinion on the sharing of this particular dataset. Experts from the Data Advisory Board whom we consulted expressed different views on the stringency of the journal reaction. Overall they agreed on the need to consider the risk to confidentiality of the trial participants and on the relevance of developing mechanisms for consideration of data requests by an independent body or committee. Interestingly, the ruling of the FOI Tribunal also indicated that the vote did not reflect a consensus among all committee members.

Fact checking the PLOS One’s Editors’ blog and a rebuttal

John Peter fact checked  the PLOS One editors’ blog. It came up short on a number of points.

“Interestingly, the ruling of the FOI Tribunal also indicated that the vote did not reflect a consensus among all committee members.”

This line is misleading and reveals either ignorance or misunderstanding of the decision in Matthees.

The Information Tribunal (IT) is not a committee. It is part of the courts system of England and Wales.

…the IT’s decisions may be appealed to a higher court. As QMUL chose not to exercise this right but to opt instead to accept the decision, then clearly it considered there were no grounds for appeal. The decision stands in its entirety and applies without condition or caveat.

And

The court had two decisions to make:

First, could and should trial data be released and if so what test should apply to determine whether particular data should be made public? Second, when that test is applied to this particular set of data, do they meet that test?

The unanimous decision on the first question was very clear: there is no legal or ethical consideration which prevents release; release is permitted by the consent forms; there is a strong public interest in the release; making data available advances legitimate scientific debate; and the data should be released.

The test set by this unanimous decision was simple: whether data can be anonymized. Furthermore, again unanimously, the Tribunal stated that the test for anonymization is not absolute. It is whether the risk of identification is reasonably likely, not whether it is remote, and whether patients can be identified without prior knowledge, specialist knowledge or equipment, or resort to criminality.

It was on applying this test to the data requested, on whether they could be properly anonymized, that the IT reached a majority decision.

On the principles, on how these decisions should be made, on the test which should be applied and on the nature of that test, the court was unanimous.

It should also be noted that to share data which have not been anonymized would be in breach of the Data Protection Act. QMUL has shared these data with other researchers. QMUL should either report itself to the Information Commissioner’s Office or accept that the data can be anonymized. In which case, the unanimous decision of the IT is very clear: the data should be shared.

PLOS ONE should apply the IT decision and its own regulations and demand the data be shared or the paper retracted.

Data Advisory Board

The Editors’ blog referred to “Experts from the Data Advisory Board.. express[ing] different views on the stringency of the journal reaction.”

That was a source of puzzlement for me. Established procedures make no provision for an advisory board as part of the process or any appeal.

A Google Search clarified. I had been to this page a number of times before and did not remember seeing this statement. There is no date or any indication it was added after the rest of the statement.

PLOS has formed an external board of advisors across many fields of research published in PLOS journals. This board will work with us to develop community standards for data sharing across various fields, provide input and advice on especially complex data-sharing situations submitted to the journals, define data-sharing compliance, and proactively work to refine our policy. If you have any questions or feedback, we welcome you to write to us at data@plos.org.

The availability of data from reanalysis and independent probing has lots of stakeholders. Independent investigators, policymakers, and patients all have a stake. I don’t recognize the names on this list and see no indication that consumers affected by what is reported in clinical and health services papers have role in making decisions about the release of data. But one name stands out.

Who is Malcolm Macleod and what is he doing in this decision-making process?

Malcolm Macleod is quoted in the Science Media Centre reaction to the PACEgate special issue:

 Expert reaction to Journal of Health Psychology’s Special Issue on The PACE Trial

Prof. Malcolm Macleod, Professor of Neurology and Translational Neuroscience, University of Edinburgh, said:

“The PACE trial, while not perfect, provides far and away the best evidence for the effectiveness of any intervention for chronic fatigue; and certainly is more robust than any of the other research cited. Reading the criticisms, I was struck by how little actual meat there is in them; and wondered where some of the authors came from. In fact, one of them lists as an institution a research centre (Soerabaja Research Center) which only seems to exist as an affiliation on papers he wrote criticising the PACE trial.

“Their main criticisms seem to revolve around the primary outcome was changed halfway through the trial: there are lots of reasons this can happen, some justifiable and others not; the main think is whether it was done without knowledge of the outcomes already accumulated in the trial and before data lock – which is what was done here.

“So I don’t think there is really a story here, apart from a group of authors, some of doubtful provenance, kicking up dust about a study which has a few minor wrinkles (as all do) but still provides information reliable enough to shape practice. If you substitute ‘CFS’ for ‘autism’ and ‘PACE trial’ for ‘vaccination’ you see a familiar pattern…”

The declaration of interest is revealing in what it says and what it does not say.

Prof. MacLeod: “Prof Sharpe used to have an office next to my wife’s; and I sit on the PLoS Data board that considered what to do about one of their other studies.

The declaration fails to reveal a recent publication co-authored by Macleod and Trudy  Chalder.

Wu S, Mead G, Macleod M, Chalder T. Model of understanding fatigue after stroke. Stroke. 2015 Mar 1;46(3):893-8.

This press release comes from an organization strongly committed to the protection of the PACE trial from independent scrutiny. The SMC even organized a letter writing campaign headed by Peter White to petition Parliament to exclude universities for Freedom of Information Act requests. Of course, that will effectively block request for data.

Why would the PLOS One editors involved such a person to reconsider what been a decision in favor of releasing the data?

Connect the dots.

Trends will continue toward making uploading data into publicly accessible repositories a requirement for publication. PLOS One has bought into discredited arguments about patient consent forms not allowing sharing of anonymized data. PLOS One is no longer at the vanguard of open science through routine data sharing.

Embargo broken: Bristol University Professor to discuss trial of quack chronic fatigue syndrome treatment.

An alternative press briefing to compare and contrast with what is being provided by the Science Media Centre for a press conference on Wednesday September 20, 2017.

mind the brain logo

This blog post provides an alternative press briefing to compare and contrast with what was provided by the Science Media Centre for a press conference on Wednesday September 20, 2017.

The press release attached at the bottom of the post announces the publication of results of highly controversial trial that many would argue should never have occurred. The trial exposed children to an untested treatment with a quack explanation delivered by unqualified persons. Lots of money was earned from the trial by the promoters of the quack treatment beyond the boost in credibility for their quack treatment.

Note to journalists and the media: for further information email jcoynester@Gmail.com

This trial involved quackery delivered by unqualified practitioners who are otherwise untrained and insensitive to any harm to patients.

The UK Advertising Standards Authority had previously ruled that Lightning Process could not be advertised as a treatment. [ 1 ]

The Lightning is billed as mixing elements from osteopathy, life coaching and neuro-linguistic programming. That is far from having a mechanism of action based in science or evidence. [2] Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) has been thoroughly debunked for its pseudoscientific references to brain science and ceased to be discussed in the scientific literature. [3]

Many experts would consider the trial unethical. It involved exposing children and adolescents to an unproven treatment with no prior evidence of effectiveness or safety nor any scientific basis for the mechanism by which it is claimed to work.

 As an American who has decades served on of experience with Committees for the Protection of Human Subjects and Data Safety and Monitoring Boards, I don’t understand how this trial was approved to recruit human subjects, and particularly children and adolescents.

I don’t understand why a physician who cared about her patients would seek approval to conduct such a trial.

Participation in the trial violated patients’ trust that medical settings and personnel will protect them from such risks.

Participation in the trial is time-consuming and involves loss of opportunity to obtain less risky treatment or simply not endure the inconvenience and burden of a treatment for which there is no scientific basis to expect would work.

Esther Crawley has said “If the Lightning Process is dangerous, as they say, we need to find out. They should want to find it out, not prevent research.”  I would like to see her try out that rationale in some of the patient safety and human subjects committee meetings I have attended. The response would not likely be very polite.

Patients and their parents should have been informed of an undisclosed conflict of interest.

phil parker NHSThis trial served as basis for advertising Lightning Process on the Web as being offered in NHS clinics and as being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. [4]

Promoters of the Lightning Process received substantial payments from this trial. Although a promoter of the treatment was listed on the application for the project, she was not among the paper’s authors, so there will probably be no conflict of interest declared.

The providers were not qualified medical personnel, but were working for an organization that would financially benefit from positive findings.

It is expected that children who received the treatment as part of the trial would continue to receive it from providers who were trained and certified by promoters of the Lightning Process,

By analogy, think of a pharmaceutical trial in which the influence of drug company and that it would profit from positive results was not indicated in patient consent forms. There would be a public outcry and likely legal action.

astonishingWhy might the SMILE create the illusion that Lightning Process is effective for chronic fatigue syndrome?

There were multiple weaknesses in the trial design that would likely generate a false impression that the Lightning Process works. Under similar conditions, homeopathy and sham acupuncture appear effective [5]. Experts know to reject such results because (1) more rigorous designs are required to evaluate efficacy of treatment in order to rule out placebo effects; and (b) there must be a scientific basis for the mechanism of change claimed for how the treatment works. 

Indoctrination of parents and patients with pseudoscientific information. Advertisements for the Lightning Process on the Internet, including YouTube videos, and created a demand for this treatment among patients but it’s cost (£620) is prohibitive for many.

Selection Bias. Participation in the trial involved a 50% probability the treatment would be received for free. (Promoters of the Lightning Process received £567 for each patient who received the treatment in the trial). Parents who believed in the power of the the Lightning Process would be motived to enroll in the trial in order to obtain the treatment free for their children.

The trial was unblinded. Patients and treatment providers knew to which group patients were assigned. Not only with patients getting the Lightning Process be exposed to the providers’ positive expectations and encouragement, those assigned to the control group could register the disappointment when completing outcome measures.

The self-report subjective outcomes of this trial are susceptible to nonspecific factors (placebo effects). These include positive expectations, increased contact and support, and a rationale for what was being done, even if scientifically unsound. These nonspecific factors were concentrated in the group receiving the Lightning Process intervention. This serves to stack the deck in any evaluation of the Lightning Process and inflate differences with the patients who didn’t get into this group.

There were no objective measures of outcome. The one measure with a semblance of objectivity, school attendance, was eliminated in a pilot study. Objective measures would have provided a check on the likely exaggerated effects obtained with subjective seif-report measures.

The providers were not qualified medical, but were working for an organization that would financially benefit from positive findings. The providers were highly motivated to obtain positive results.

During treatment, the  Lightning Process further indoctrinates child and adolescent patients with pseudoscience [ 6 ] and involves coercion to fake that they are getting well [7 ]. Such coercion can interfere with the patients getting appropriate help when they need it, their establishing appropriate expectations with parental and school authorities, and even their responding honestly to outcome assessments.

 It’s not just patients and patient family members activists who object to the trial. As professionals have gotten more informed, there’s been increasing international concern about the ethics and safety of this trial.

The Science Media Centre has consistently portrayed critics of Esther Crawley’s work as being a disturbed minority of patients and patients’ family members. Smearing and vilification of patients and parents who object to the trial is unprecedented.

Particularly with the international controversy over the PACE trial of cognitive behavior therapy  and graded exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome, the patients have been joined by non-patient scientists and clinicians in their concerns.

Really, if you were a fully informed parent of a child who was being pressured to participate in the trial with false claims of the potential benefits, wouldn’t you object?

embargoed news briefing

Notes

[1] “To date, neither the ASA nor CAP [Committee of Advertising Practice] has seen robust evidence for the health benefits of LP. Advertisers should take care not to make implied claims about the health benefits of the three-day course and must not refer to conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.”

[2] The respected Skeptics Dictionary offers a scathing critique of Phil Parker’s Lightning Process. The critique specifically cites concerns that Crawley’s SMILE trial switched outcomes to increase the likelihood of obtaining evidence of effectiveness.

[3] The entry for Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) inWikipedia states:

There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates and it has been discredited as a pseudoscience by experts.[1][12] Scientific reviews state that NLP is based on outdated metaphors of how the brain works that are inconsistent with current neurological theory and contain numerous factual errors.[13][14

[4] NHS and LP    Phil Parker’s webpage announces the collaboration with Bristol University and provides a link to the officialSMILE  trial website.

{5] A provocative New England Journal of Medicine article, Active Albuterol or Placebo, Sham Acupuncture, or No Intervention in Asthma study showed that sham acupuncture as effective as an established medical treatment – an albuterol inhaler – for asthma when judged with subjective measures, but there was a large superiority for the established medical treatment obtained with objective measures.

[6] Instructional materials that patient are required to read during treatment include:

LP trains individuals to recognize when they are stimulating or triggering unhelpful physiological responses and to avoid these, using a set of standardized questions, new language patterns and physical movements with the aim of improving a more appropriate response to situations.

* Learn about the detailed science and research behind the Lightning Process and how it can help you resolve your issues.

* Start your training in recognising when you’re using your body, nervous system and specific language patterns in a damaging way

What if you could learn to reset your body’s health systems back to normal by using the well researched connection that exists between the brain and body?

The Lightning Process does this by teaching you how to spot when the PER is happening and how you can calm this response down, allowing your body to re-balance itself.

The Lightning Process will teach you how to use Neuroplasticity to break out of any destructive unconscious patterns that are keeping you stuck, and learn to use new, life and health enhancing ones instead.

The Lightning Process is a training programme which has had huge success with people who want to improve their health and wellbeing.

[7] Responsibility of patients:

Believe that Lightning Process will heal you. Tell everyone that you have been healed. Perform magic rituals like standing in circles drawn on paper with positive Keywords stated on them. Learn to render short rhyme when you feel symptoms, no matter where you are, as many times as required for the symptoms to disappear. Speak only in positive terms and think only positive thoughts. If symptoms or negative thoughts come, you must stretch forth your arms with palms facing outward and shout “Stop!” You are solely responsible for ME. You can choose to have ME. But you are free to choose a life without ME if you wish. If the method does not work, it is you who are doing something wrong.

skeptical-cat-is-fraught-with-skepticism-300x225Special thanks to the Skeptical Cat who provided me with an advance copy of the press release from Science Media Centre.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before you enroll your child in the MAGENTA chronic fatigue syndrome study: Issues to be considered

[October 3 8:23 AM Update: I have now inserted Article 21 of the Declaration of Helsinki below, which is particularly relevant to discussions of the ethical problems of Dr. Esther Crawley’s previous SMILE trial.]

Petitions are calling for shutting down the MAGENTA trial. Those who organized the effort and signed the petition are commendably brave, given past vilification of any effort by patients and their allies to have a say about such trials.

Below I identify a number of issues that parents should consider in deciding whether to enroll their children in the MAGENTA trial or to withdraw them if they have already been enrolled. I take a strong stand, but I believe I have adequately justified and documented my points. I welcome discussion to the contrary.

This is a long read but to summarize the key points:

  • The MAGENTA trial does not promise any health benefits for the children participating in the trial. The information sheet for the trial was recently modified to suggest they might benefit. However, earlier versions clearly stated that no benefit was anticipated.
  • There is inadequate disclosure of likely harms to children participating in the trial.
  • An estimate of a health benefit can be evaluated from the existing literature concerning the effectiveness of the graded exercise therapy intervention with adults. Obtaining funding for the MAGENTA trial depended on a misrepresentation of the strength of evidence that it works in adult populations.  I am talking about the PACE trial.
  • Beyond any direct benefit to their children, parents might be motivated by the hope of contributing to science and the availability of effective treatments. However, these possible benefits depend on publication of results of a trial after undergoing peer review. The Principal Investigator for the MAGENTA trial, Dr. Esther Crawley, has a history of obtaining parents’ consent for participation of their children in the SMILE trial, but then not publishing the results in a timely fashion. Years later, we are still waiting.
  • Dr. Esther Crawley exposed children to unnecessary risk without likely benefit in her conduct of the SMILE trial. This clinical trial involved inflicting a quack treatment on children. Parents were not adequately informed of the nature of the treatment and the absence of evidence for any mechanism by which the intervention could conceivably be effective. This reflects on the due diligence that Dr. Crawley can be expected to exercise in the MAGENTA trial.
  • The consent form for the MAGENTA trial involves parents granting permission for the investigator to use children and parents’ comments concerning effects of the treatment for its promotion. Insufficient restrictions are placed on how the comments can be used. There is the clear precedent of comments made in the context of the SMILE trial being used to promote the quack Lightning Process treatment in the absence of evidence that treatment was actually effective in the trial. There is no guarantee that any comments collected from children and parents in the MAGENTA trial would not similarly be misused.
  • Dr. Esther Crawley participated in a smear campaign against parents having legitimate concerns about the SMILE trial. Parents making legitimate use of tools provided by the government such as Freedom of Information Act requests, appeals of decisions of ethical review boards and complaints to the General Medical Council were vilified and shamed.
  • Dr. Esther Crawley has provided direct, self-incriminating quotes in the newsletter of the Science Media Centre about how she was coached and directed by their staff to slam the patient community.  She played a key role in a concerted and orchestrated attack on the credibility of not only parents of participants in the MAGENTA trial, but of all patients having chronic fatigue syndrome/ myalgic encephalomyelitis , as well as their advocates and allies.

I am not a parent of a child eligible for recruitment to the MAGENTA trial. I am not even a citizen or resident of the UK. Nonetheless, I have considered the issues and lay out some of my considerations below. On this basis, I signed the global support version  of the UK petition to suspend all trials of graded exercise therapy in children and adults with ME/CFS. I encourage readers who are similarly in my situation outside the UK to join me in signing the global support petition.

If I were a parent of an eligible child or a resident of the UK, I would not enroll my child in MAGENTA. I would immediately withdraw my child if he or she were currently participating in the trial. I would request all the child’s data be given back or evidence that it had been destroyed.

I recommend my PLOS Mind the Brain post, What patients should require before consenting to participate in research…  as either a prelude or epilogue to the following blog post.

What you will find here is a discussion of matters that parents should consider before enrolling their children in the MAGENTA trial of graded exercise for chronic fatigue syndrome. The previous blog post [http://blogs.plos.org/mindthebrain/2015/12/09/what-patients-should-require-before-consenting-to-participate-in-research/ ]  is rich in links to an ongoing initiative from The BMJ to promote broader involvement of patients (and implicitly, parents of patients) in the design, implementation, and interpretation of clinical trials. The views put forth by The BMJ are quite progressive, even if there is a gap between their expression of views and their actual implementation. Overall, that blog post presents a good set of standards for patients (and parents) making informed decisions concerning enrollment in clinical trials.

Simon McGrathLate-breaking update: See also

Simon McGrath: PACE trial shows why medicine needs patients to scrutinise studies about their health

Basic considerations.

Patients are under no obligation to participate in clinical trials. It should be recognized that any participation typically involves burden and possibly risk over what is involved in receiving medical care outside of a clinical trial.

It is a deprivation of their human rights and a violation of the Declaration of Helsinki to coerce patients to participate in medical research without freely given, fully informed consent.

Patients cannot be denied any medical treatment or attention to which they would otherwise be entitled if they fail to enroll in a clinical trial.

Issues are compounded when consent from parents is sought for participation of vulnerable children and adolescents for whom they have legal responsibility. Although assent to participate in clinical trials is sought from children and adolescents, it remains for their parents to consent to their participation.

Parents can at any time withdraw their consent for their children and adolescents participating in trials and have their data removed, without requiring the approval of any authorities of their reason for doing so.

Declaration of Helsinki

The World Medical Association (WMA) has developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including research on identifiable human material and data.

It includes:

In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, post-study provisions and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject must be informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. Special attention should be given to the specific information needs of individual potential subjects as well as to the methods used to deliver the information.

[October 3 8:23 AM Update]: I have now inserted Article 21 of the Declaration of Helsinki which really nails the ethical problems of the SMILE trial:

21. Medical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles, be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant sources of information, and adequate laboratory and, as appropriate, animal experimentation. The welfare of animals used for research must be respected.

There is clearly in adequate scientific justification for testing the quack Lightning Process Treatment.

What Is the Magenta Trial?

The published MAGENTA study protocol states

This study aims to investigate the acceptability and feasibility of carrying out a multicentre randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of graded exercise therapy compared with activity management for children/teenagers who are mildly or moderately affected with CFS/ME.

Methods and analysis 100 paediatric patients (8–17 years) with CFS/ME will be recruited from 3 specialist UK National Health Service (NHS) CFS/ME services (Bath, Cambridge and Newcastle). Patients will be randomised (1:1) to receive either graded exercise therapy or activity management. Feasibility analysis will include the number of young people eligible, approached and consented to the trial; attrition rate and treatment adherence; questionnaire and accelerometer completion rates. Integrated qualitative methods will ascertain perceptions of feasibility and acceptability of recruitment, randomisation and the interventions. All adverse events will be monitored to assess the safety of the trial.

The first of two treatments being compared is:

Arm 1: activity management

This arm will be delivered by CFS/ME specialists. As activity management is currently being delivered in all three services, clinicians will not require further training; however, they will receive guidance on the mandatory, prohibited and flexible components (see online supplementary appendix 1). Clinicians therefore have flexibility in delivering the intervention within their National Health Service (NHS) setting. Activity management aims to convert a ‘boom–bust’ pattern of activity (lots 1 day and little the next) to a baseline with the same daily amount before increasing the daily amount by 10–20% each week. For children and adolescents with CFS/ME, these are mostly cognitive activities: school, schoolwork, reading, socialising and screen time (phone, laptop, TV, games). Those allocated to this arm will receive advice about the total amount of daily activity, including physical activity, but will not receive specific advice about their use of exercise, increasing exercise or timed physical exercise.

So, the first arm of the trial is a comparison condition consisting of standard care delivered without further training of providers. The treatment is flexibly delivered, expected to vary between settings, and thus largely uncontrolled. The treatment represents a methodologically weak condition that does not adequately control for attention and positive expectations. Control conditions should be equivalent to the intervention being evaluated in these dimensions.

The second arm of the study:

Arm 2: graded exercise therapy (GET)

This arm will be delivered by referral to a GET-trained CFS/ME specialist who will receive guidance on the mandatory, prohibited and flexible components (see online supplementary appendix 1). They will be encouraged to deliver GET as they would in their NHS setting.20 Those allocated to this arm will be offered advice that is focused on exercise with detailed assessment of current physical activity, advice about exercise and a programme including timed daily exercise. The intervention will encourage children and adolescents to find a baseline level of exercise which will be increased slowly (by 10–20% a week, as per NICE guidance5 and the Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy – a randomised Evaluation (PACE)12 ,21). This will be the median amount of daily exercise done during the week. Children and adolescents will also be taught to use a heart rate monitor to avoid overexertion. Participants will be advised to stay within the target heart rate zones of 50–70% of their maximum heart rate.5 ,7

The outcome of the trial will be evaluated in terms of

Quantitative analysis

The percentage recruited of those eligible will be calculated …Retention will be estimated as the percentage of recruited children and adolescents reaching the primary 6-month follow-up point, who provide key outcome measures (the Chalder Fatigue Scale and the 36-Item Short-Form Physical Functioning Scale (SF-36 PFS)) at that assessment point.

actigraphObjective data will be collected in the form of physical activity measured by Accelerometers. These are

Small, matchbox-sized devices that measure physical activity. They have been shown to provide reliable indicators of physical activity among children and adults.

However, actual evaluation of the outcome of the trial will focus on recruitment and retention and subjective, self-report measures of fatigue and physical functioning. These subjective measures have been shown to be less valid than objective measures. Scores are  vulnerable  to participants knowing what condition they are assigned to (called ‘being unblinded’) and their perception of which intervention the investigators prefer.

It is notable that in the PACE trial of CBT and GET for chronic fatigue syndrome in adults, the investigators manipulated participants’ self-reports with praise in newsletters sent out during the trial . The investigators also switched their scoring of the self-report measures and produced results that they later conceded to have been exaggerated by their changing in scoring of the self-report measures [http://www.wolfson.qmul.ac.uk/current-projects/pace-trial#news ].

Irish ME/CFS Association Officer & Tom Kindlon
Tom Kindlon, Irish ME/CFS Association Officer

See an excellent commentary by Tom Kindlon at PubMed Commons [What’s that? ]

The validity of using subjective outcome measures as primary outcomes is questionable in such a trial

The bottom line is that the investigators have a poorly designed study with inadequate control condition. They have chosen subjective self-reports that are prone to invalidity and manipulation over objective measures like actual changes in activity or practical real-world measures like school attendance. Not very good science here. But they are asking parents to sign their children up.

What is promised to parents consenting to have the children enrolled in the trial?

The published protocol to which the investigators supposedly committed themselves stated

What are the possible benefits and risks of participating?
Participants will not benefit directly from taking part in the study although it may prove enjoyable contributing to the research. There are no risks of participating in the study.

Version 7 of the information sheet provided to parents, states

Your child may benefit from the treatment they receive, but we cannot guarantee this. Some children with CFS/ME like to know that they are helping other children in the future. Your child may also learn about research.

Survey assessments conducted by the patient community strongly contradict the suggestion that there is no risk of harm with GET.

alemAlem Matthees, the patient activist who obtained release of the PACE data and participated in reanalysis has commented:

“Given that post-exertional symptomatology is a hallmark of ME/CFS, it is premature to do trials of graded exercise on children when safety has not first been properly established in adults. The assertion that graded exercise is safe in adults is generally based on trials where harms are poorly reported or where the evidence of objectively measured increases in total activity levels is lacking. Adult patients commonly report that their health was substantially worsened after trying to increase their activity levels, sometimes severely and permanently, therefore this serious issue cannot be ignored when recruiting children for research.”

See also

Kindlon T. Reporting of harms associated with graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Bulletin of the IACFS/ME. 2011;19(2):59-111.

This thorough systematic review reports inadequacy in harm reporting in clinical trials, but:

Exercise-related physiological abnormalities have been documented in recent studies and high rates of adverse  reactions  to exercise have been  recorded in  a number of  patient surveys. Fifty-one percent of  survey respondents (range 28-82%, n=4338, 8 surveys) reported that GET worsened their health while 20% of respondents (range 7-38%, n=1808, 5 surveys) reported similar results for CBT.

The unpublished results of Dr. Esther Crawley’s SMILE trial

 A Bristol University website indicates that recruitment of the SMILE trial was completed in 2013. The published protocol for the SMILE trial

[Note the ® in the title below, indicating a test of trademarked commercial product. The significance of that is worthy of a whole other blog post. ]

Crawley E, Mills N, Hollingworth W, Deans Z, Sterne JA, Donovan JL, Beasant L, Montgomery A. Comparing specialist medical care with specialist medical care plus the Lightning Process® for chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (SMILE Trial). Trials. 2013 Dec 26;14(1):1.

States

The data monitoring group will receive notice of serious adverse events (SAEs) for the sample as whole. If the incidence of SAEs of a similar type is greater than would be expected in this population, it will be possible for the data monitoring group to receive data according to trial arm to determine any evidence of excess in either arm.

Primary outcome data at six months will be examined once data are available from 50 patients, to ensure that neither arm is having a detrimental effect on the majority of patients. An independent statistician with no other involvement in the study will investigate whether more than 20 participants in the study sample as a whole have experienced a reduction of ≥ 30 points on the SF-36 at six months. In this case, the data will then be summarised separately by trial arm, and sent to the data monitoring group for review. This process will ensure that the trial team will not have access to the outcome data separated by treatment arm.

A Bristol University website indicates that recruitment of the SMILE trial was completed in 2013. The trial was thus completed a number of years ago, but these valuable data have never been published.

The only publication from the trial so far uses selective quotes from child participants that cannot be independently evaluated. Readers are not told how representative these quotes, the outcomes for the children being quoted or the overall outcomes of the trial.

Parslow R, Patel A, Beasant L, Haywood K, Johnson D, Crawley E. What matters to children with CFS/ME? A conceptual model as the first stage in developing a PROM. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2015 Dec 1;100(12):1141-7.

The “evaluation” of the quack Lightning Treatment in the SMILE trial and quotes from patients have also been used to promote Parker’s products as being used in NHS clinics.

How can I say the Lightning Process is quackery?

 Dr. Crawley describes the Lightning Process in the Research Ethics Application Form for the SMILE study as   ombining the principles of neurolinguistic programming, osteopathy, and clinical hypnotherapy.

That is an amazing array of three different frameworks from different disciplines. You would be hard pressed to find an example other than the Lightning Process that claimed to integrate them. Yet, any mechanisms for explaining therapeutic interventions cannot be a creative stir fry of whatever is on hand being thrown together. For a treatment to be considered science-based, there has to be a solid basis of evidence that these presumably complex processes fit together as assumed and work as assumed. I challenge Dr. Crawley or anyone else to produce a shred of credible, peer-reviewed evidence for the basic mechanism of the Lightning Process.

The entry for Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) in Wikipedia states

There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates and it has been discredited as a pseudoscience by experts.[1][12] Scientific reviews state that NLP is based on outdated metaphors of how the brain works that are inconsistent with current neurological theory and contain numerous factual errors.[13][14

The respected Skeptics Dictionary offers a scathing critique of Phil Parker’s Lightning Process. The critique specifically cites concerns that Crawley’s SMILE trial switched outcomes to increase the likelihood of obtaining evidence of effectiveness.

 The Hampshire (UK) County Council Trading Standards Office filed a formal complaint against Phil Parker for claims made on the Lightning Process website concerning effects on CFS/ME:

The “CFS/ME” page of the website included the statements “Our survey found that 81.3 %* of clients report that they no longer have the issues they came with by day three of the LP course” and “The Lightning Process is working with the NHS on a feasibility study, please click here for further details, and for other research information click here”.

parker nhs advert
Seeming endorsements on Parker’s website. Two of them –Northern Ireland and NHS Suffolk subsequently complained that use of their insignias was unauthorized and they were quickly removed.

The “working with the NHS” refers to the collaboration with Dr. Easter Crawley.

The UK Advertising Standards Authority upheld this complaint, as well as about Parker’s claims about effectiveness with other conditions, including  multiple sclerosis, irritable bowel syndrome and fibromyalgia

 Another complaint in 2013 about claims on Phil Parker’s website was similarly upheld:

 The claims must not appear again in their current form. We welcomed the decision to remove the claims. We told Phil Parker Group not to make claims on websites within their control that were directly connected with the supply of their goods and services if those claims could not be supported with robust evidence. We also told them not to refer to conditions for which advice should be sought from suitably qualified health professionals.

 As we will see, these upheld charges of quackery occurred when parents of children participating in the SMILE trial were being vilified in the BMJ and elsewhere. Dr. Crawley was prominently featured in this vilification and was quoted in a celebration of its success by the Science Media Centre, which had orchestrated the vilification.

Captured cfs praker ad

The Research Ethics Committee approval of the SMILE trial and the aftermath

 I was not very aware of the CFS/ME literature, and certainly not all its controversies when the South West Research Ethics Committee (REC) reviewed the application for the SMILE trial and ultimately approved it on September 8, 2010.

I would have had strong opinions about it. I only first started blogging a little afterwards.  But I was very concerned about any patients being exposed to alternative and unproven medical treatments in other contexts that were not evidence-based – even more so to treatments for which promoters claimed implausible mechanisms by which they worked. I would not have felt it appropriate to inflict the Lightning Process on unsuspecting children. It is insufficient justification to put them a clinical trial simply because a particular treatment has not been evaluated.

 Prince Charles once advocated organic coffee enemas to treat advanced cancer. His endorsement generated a lot of curiosity from cancer patients. But that would not justify a randomized trial of coffee enemas. By analogy, I don’t think Dr. Esther Crawley had sufficient justification to conduct her trial, especially without warnings that that there was no scientific basis to expect the Lightning Process to work or that it would not hurt the children.

 I am concerned about clinical trials that have little likelihood of producing evidence that a treatment is effective, but that seemed designed to get these treatments into routine clinical care. it is now appreciated that some clinical trials have little scientific value but serve as experimercials or means of placing products in clinical settings. Pharmaceutical companies notoriously do this.

As it turned out, the SMILE trial succeeded admirably as a promotion for the Lightning Process, earning Phil Parker unknown but substantial fees through its use in the SMILE trial, but also in successful marketing throughout the NHS afterwards.

In short, I would been concerned about the judgment of Dr. Esther Crawley in organizing the SMILE trial. I would been quite curious about conflicts of interest and whether patients were adequately informed of how Phil Parker was benefiting.

The ethics review of the SMILE trial gave short shrift to these important concerns.

When the patient community and its advocate, Dr. Charles Shepherd, became aware of the SMILE trial’s approval, there were protests leading to re-evaluations all the way up to the National Patient Safety Agency. Examining an Extract of Minutes from South West 2 REC meeting held on 2 December 2010, I see many objections to the approval being raised and I am unsatisfied by the way in which they were discounted.

Patient, parent, and advocate protests escalated. If some acted inappropriate, this did not undermine the righteousness of others legitimate protest. By analogy, I feel strongly about police violence aimed against African-Americans and racist policies that disproportionately target African-Americans for police scrutiny and stoppng. I’m upset when agitators and provocateurs become violent at protests, but that does not delegitimize my concerns about the way black people are treated in America.

Dr. Esther Crawley undoubtedly experienced considerable stress and unfair treatment, but I don’t understand why she was not responsive to patient concerns nor  why she failed to honor her responsibility to protect child patients from exposure to unproven and likely harmful treatments.

Dr. Crawley is extensively quoted in a British Medical Journal opinion piece authored by a freelance journalist,  Nigel Hawkes:

Hawkes N. Dangers of research into chronic fatigue syndrome. BMJ. 2011 Jun 22;342:d3780.

If I had been on the scene, Dr. Crawley might well have been describing me in terms of how I would react, including my exercising of appropriate, legally-provided means of protest and complaint:

Critics of the method opposed the trial, first, Dr Crawley says, by claiming it was a terrible treatment and then by calling for two ethical reviews. Dr Shepherd backed the ethical challenge, which included the claim that it was unethical to carry out the trial in children, made by the ME Association and the Young ME Sufferers Trust. After re-opening its ethical review and reconsidering the evidence in the light of the challenge, the regional ethical committee of the NHS reiterated its support for the trial.

There was arguably some smearing of Dr. Shepherd, even in some distancing of him from the action of others:

This point of view, if not the actions it inspires, is defended by Charles Shepherd, medical adviser to and trustee of the ME Association. “The anger and frustration patients have that funding has been almost totally focused on the psychiatric side is very justifiable,” he says. “But the way a very tiny element goes about protesting about it is not acceptable.

This article escalated with unfair comparisons to animal rights activists, with condemnation of appropriate use of channels of complaint – reporting physicians to the General Medical Council.

The personalised nature of the campaign has much in common with that of animal rights activists, who subjected many scientists to abuse and intimidation in the 1990s. The attitude at the time was that the less said about the threats the better. Giving them publicity would only encourage more. Scientists for the most part kept silent and journalists desisted from writing about the subject, partly because they feared anything they wrote would make the situation worse. Some journalists have also been discouraged from writing about CFS/ME, such is the unpleasant atmosphere it engenders.

While the campaigners have stopped short of the violent activities of the animal rights groups, they have another weapon in their armoury—reporting doctors to the GMC. Willie Hamilton, an academic general practitioner and professor of primary care diagnostics at Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, served on the panel assembled by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to formulate treatment advice for CFS/ME.

Simon Wessely and the Principal Investigator of the PACE trial, Peter White, were given free rein to dramatize their predicament posed by the protest. Much later, in the 2016 Lower Tribunal Hearing, testimony would be given by PACE

Co-Investigator Trudie Chalder would much later (2016) cast doubt on whether the harassment was as severe or violent as it was portrayed. Before that, the financial conflicts of interest of Peter White that were denied in the article would be exposed.

In response to her testimony, the UK Information Officer stated:

Professor Chalder’s evidence when she accepts that unpleasant things have been said to and about PACE researchers only, but that no threats have been made either to researchers or participants.

But in 2012, a pamphlet celebrating the success of The Science Media Centre started by Wessely would be rich in indiscreet quotes from Esther Crawley. The article in BMJ was revealed to be part of a much larger orchestrated campaign to smear, discredit and silence patients, parents, advocates and their allies.

Dr. Esther Crawley’s participation in a campaign organized by the Science Media Center to discredit patients, parents, advocates and supporters.

 The SMC would later organize a letter writing campaign to Parliament in support of Peter White and his refusal to release the PACE data to Alem Mattheees who had made a requestunder the Freedom of Information Act. The letter writing campaign was an effort to get scientific data excluded from the provisions of the freedom of information act. The effort failed and the data were subsequently released.

But here is how Esther Crawley described her assistance:

The SMC organised a meeting so we could discuss what to do to protect researchers. Those who had been subject to abuse met with press officers, representatives from the GMC and, importantly, police who had dealt with the  animal rights campaign. This transformed my view of  what had been going on. I had thought those attacking us were “activists”; the police explained they were “extremists”.

And

We were told that we needed to make better use of the law and consider using the press in our favour – as had researchers harried by animal rights extremists. “Let the public know what you are trying to do and what is happening to you,” we were told. “Let the public decide.”

And

I took part in quite a few interviews that day, and have done since. I was also inundated with letters, emails and phone calls from patients with CFS/ME all over the world asking me to continue and not “give up”. The malicious, they pointed out, are in a minority. The abuse has stopped completely. I never read the activists’ blogs, but friends who did told me that they claimed to be “confused” and “upset” – possibly because their role had been switched from victim to abuser. “We never thought we were doing any harm…”

 The patient community and its allies are still burdened by the damage of this effort and are rebuilding its credibility only slowly. Only now are they beginning to get an audience as suffering human beings with significant, legitimate unmet needs. Only now are they escaping the stigmatization that occurred at this time with Esther Crawley playing a key role.

Where does this leave us?

stop posterParents are being asked to enroll in a clinical trial without clear benefit to the children but with the possibility of considerable risk from the graded exercise. They are being asked by Esther Crawley, a physician, who has previously inflicted a quack treatment on their children with CFS/ME in the guise of a clinical trial, for which he is never published the resulting data. She has played an effective role in damaging the legitimacy and capacity of patients and parents to complain.

Given this history and these factors, why would a parent possibly want to enroll their children in the MAGENTA trial? Somebody please tell me.

Special thanks to all the patient citizen-scientists who contributed to this blog post. Any inaccuracies or excesses are entirely my own, but these persons gave me substantial help. Some are named in the blog, but others prefer anonymity.

 All opinions expressed are solely those of James C Coyne. The blog post in no way conveys any official position of Mind the Brain, PLOS blogs or the larger PLOS community. I appreciate the free expression of  personal opinion that I am allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why the scientific community needs the PACE trial data to be released

To_deposit_or_not_to_deposit,_that_is_the_question_-_journal.pbio.1001779.g001University and clinical trial investigators must release data to a citizen-scientist patient, according to a landmark decision in the UK. But the decision could still be overturned if the University and investigators appeal. The scientific community needs the decision to be upheld. I’ll argue that it’s unwise for any appeal to be made. The reasons for withholding the data in the first place were archaic. Overturning of the decision would set a bad precedent and would remove another tooth from almost toothless requirements for data sharing.

We didn’t need Francis Collins, Director of National Institutes of Health to tell us what we already knew, the scientific and biomedical literature is untrustworthy.

And there is the new report from the UK Academy of Medical Sciences, Reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research: improving research practice.

There has been a growing unease about the reproducibility of much biomedical research, with failures to replicate findings noted in high-profile scientific journals, as well as in the general and scientific media. Lack of reproducibility hinders scientific progress and translation, and threatens the reputation of biomedical science.

Among the report’s recommendations:

  • Journals mandating that the data underlying findings are made available in a timely manner. This is already required by certain publishers such as the Public Library of Science (PLOS) and it was agreed by many participants that it should become more common practice.
  • Funders requiring that data be released in a timely fashion. Many funding agencies require that data generated with their funding be made available to the scientific community in a timely and responsible manner

A consensus has been reached: The crisis in the trustworthiness of science can be only overcome only if scientific data are routinely available for reanalysis. Independent replication of socially significant findings is often unfeasible, and unnecessary if original data are fully available for inspection.

Numerous governmental funding agencies and regulatory bodies are endorsing routine data sharing.

The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) 2011 policy on data sharing and preservation  has endorsed principles laid out by the Research Councils UK including

Publicly funded research data are a public good, produced in the public interest, which should be made openly available with as few restrictions as possible in a timely and responsible manner.

To enable research data to be discoverable and effectively re-used by others, sufficient metadata should be recorded and made openly available to enable other researchers to understand the research and re-use potential of the data. Published results should always include information on how to access the supporting data.

The Wellcome Trust Policy On Data Management and Sharing opens with

The Wellcome Trust is committed to ensuring that the outputs of the research it funds, including research data, are managed and used in ways that maximise public benefit. Making research data widely available to the research community in a timely and responsible manner ensures that these data can be verified, built upon and used to advance knowledge and its application to generate improvements in health.

The Cochrane Collaboration has weighed in that there should be ready access to all clinical trial data

Summary results for all protocol-specified outcomes, with analyses based on all participants, to become publicly available free of charge and in easily accessible electronic formats within 12 months after completion of planned collection of trial data;

Raw, anonymised, individual participant data to be made available free of charge; with appropriate safeguards to ensure ethical and scientific integrity and standards, and to protect participant privacy (for example through a central repository, and accompanied by suitably detailed explanation).

Many similar statements can be found on the web. I’m unaware of credible counterarguments gaining wide acceptance.

toothless manYet, endorsements of routine sharing of data are only a promissory reform and depend on enforcement that has been spotty, at best. Those of us who request data from previously published clinical trials quickly realize that requirements for sharing data have no teeth. In light of that, scientists need to watch closely whether a landmark decision concerning sharing of data from a publicly funded trial is appealed and overturned.

The Decision requiring release of the PACE data

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) ordered Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) on October 27, 2015 to release anonymized from the PACE chronic fatigue syndrome trial data to an unnamed complainant. QMUL has 28 days to appeal.

Even if scientists don’t know enough to care about Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, they should be concerned about the reasons that were given in a previous refusal to release the data.

I took a critical look at the long-term follow up results for the PACE trial in a previous Mind the Brain blog post  and found fatal flaws in the authors’ self-congratulatory interpretation of results. Despite authors’ claims to the contrary and their extraordinary efforts to encourage patients to report the intervention was helpful, there were simply no differences between groups at follow-up

Background on the request for release of PACE data

  • A complainant requested release of specific PACE data from QMUL under the Freedom of Information Act.
  • QMUL refused the request.
  • The complainant requested an internal review but QMUL maintained its decision to withhold the data.
  • The complainant contacted the ICO with concerns about how the request had been handled.
  • On October 27, 2015, the ICO sided with the complainant and order the release of the data.

A report outlines Queen Mary’s arguments for refusing to release the data and the Commissioner’s justification for siding with the patient requesting the data be released.

Reasons the request release of data was initially refused

The QMU PACE investigators claimed

  • They were entitled to withhold data prior to publication of planned papers.
  • An exemption to having to share data because data contained sensitive medical information from which it was possible to identify the trial participants.
  • Release of the data might harm their ability to recruit patients for research studies in the future.

The QMU PACE researchers specifically raised concerns about a motivated intruder being able to facilitate re-identification of participants:

In relation to a motivated intruder being able facilitate re-identification of participants, the University argued that:

“The PACE trial has been subject to extreme scrutiny and opponents have been against it for several years. There has been a concerted effort by a vocal minority whose views as to the causes and treatment of CFS/ME do not comport with the PACE trial and who, it is QMUL’s belief, are trying to discredit the trial. Indeed, as noted by the editor of the Lancet, after the 2011 paper’s publication, the nature of this comprised not a ‘scientific debate’ but an “orchestrated response trying to undermine the credibility of the study from patient groups [and]… also the credibility of the investigators and that’s what I think is one of the other alarming aspects of this. This isn’t a purely scientific debate; this is going to the heart of the integrity of the scientists who conducted this study.”

Magneto_430Bizarre. This is obviously a talented masked motivated intruder. Do they have evidence that Magneto is at it again? Mostly he now is working with the good guys, as seen in the help he gave Neurocritic and me.

Let’s think about this novel argument. I checked with University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Jon Merz, an expert who has worked internationally to train researchers and establish committees for the protection of human subjects. His opinion was clear:

The litany of excuses – not reasons – offered by the researchers and Queen Mary University is a bald attempt to avoid transparency and accountability, hiding behind legal walls instead of meeting their critics on a level playing field.  They should be willing to provide the data for independent analyses in pursuit of the truth.  They of course could do this willingly, in a way that would let them contractually ensure that data would be protected and that no attempts to identify individual subjects would be made (and it is completely unclear why anyone would care to undertake such an effort), or they can lose this case and essentially lose any hope for controlling distribution.

The ‘orchestrated response to undermine the credibility of the study’ claimed by QMU and the PACE investigators, as well as issue being raised of the “integrity of the scientists who conducted the study” sounds all too familiar. It’s the kind of defense that is heard from scientists under scrutiny of the likes of Open Science Collaborations, as in psychology and cancer. Reactionaries resisting post-publication peer review say we must be worried about harassment from

“replication police” “shameless little bullies,” “self-righteous, self-appointed sheriffs” engaged in a process “clearly not designed to find truth,” “second stringers” who were incapable of making novel contributions of their own to the literature, and—most succinctly—“assholes.”

Far fetched? Compare this to a QMU quote drawn from the National Radio, Australian Broadcast Company April 18, 2011 interview of Richard Horton and PACE investigator Michael Sharpe in which former Lancet Editor Richard Horton condemned:

A fairly small, but highly organised, very vocal and very damaging group of individuals who have…hijacked this agenda and distorted the debate…

dost thou feel‘Distorted the debate’? Was someone so impertinent as to challenge investigators’ claims about their findings? Sounds like Pubpeer  We have seen what they can do.

Alas, all scientific findings should be scrutinized, all data relevant to the claims that are made should be available for reanalysis. Investigators just need to live with the possibility that their claims will be proven wrong or exaggerated. This is all the more true for claims that have substantial impact on public policy and clinical services, and ultimately, patient welfare.

[It is fascinating to note that Richard Horton spoke at the meeting that produced the UK Academy of Medical Sciences report to which I provided a link above. Horton covered the meaning in a Lancet editorial  in which he amplified the sentiment of the meeting: “The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world.” His editorial echoed a number of recommendations of the meeting report, but curiously omitted mentioning of data sharing.]

jacob-bronowski-scientist-that-is-the-essence-of-science-ask-anFortunately the ICO has rejected the arguments of QMUL and the PACE investigators. The Commissioner found that QMUL and the PACE investigators incorrectly interpreted regulations in their withholding of the data and should provide the complaint with the data or risk being viewed as in contempt of court.

The 30-page decision is a fascinating read, but here’s an accurate summary from elsewhere:

In his decision, the Commissioner found that QMUL failed to provide any plausible mechanism through which patients could be identified, even in the case of a “motivated intruder.” He was also not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to determine that releasing the data would result in the mass exodus of a significant number of the trial’s 640 participants nor that it would deter significant numbers of participants from volunteering to take part in future research.

Requirements for data sharing in the United States have no teeth and situation would be worsened by reversal of ICO decision

Like the UK, the United States supposedly has requirements for sharing of data from publicly funded trials. But good luck in getting support from regulatory agencies associated with funding sources for obtaining data. Here’s my recent story, still unfolding – or maybe, sadly, over, at least for now.

For a long time I’ve fought my own battles about researchers making unwarranted claims that psychotherapy extend the lives of cancer patients. Research simply does not support the claim. The belief that psychological factors have such influence on the course and outcome of cancer sets up cancer patients to be blamed and to blame themselves when they don’t overcome their disease by some sort of mind control. Our systematic review concluded

“No randomized trial designed with survival as a primary endpoint and in which psychotherapy was not confounded with medical care has yielded a positive effect.”

Investigators who conducted some of the best ambitious, well-designed trials to test the efficacy of psychological interventions on cancer but obtained null results echoed our assessment. The commentaries were entitled “Letting Go of Hope” and “Time to Move on.”

I provided an extensive review of the literature concerning whether psychotherapy and support groups increased survival time in an earlier blog post. Hasn’t the issue of mind-over-cancer been laid to rest? I was recently contacted by a science journalist interested in writing an article about this controversy. After a long discussion, he concluded that the issue was settled — no effect had been found — and he could not succeed in pitching his idea for an article to a quality magazine.

But as detailed here one investigator has persisted in claims that a combination of relaxation exercises, stress reduction, and nutritional counseling increases survival time. My colleagues and I gave this 2008 study a careful look.  We ran chi-square analyses of basic data presented in the paper’s tables. But none of our analyses of group assignment on mortality more disease recurrence was significant. The investigators’ claim of an effect depended on dubious multivariate analyses with covariates that could not be independently evaluated without a look at the data.

The investigator group initially attempted to block publication of a letter to the editor, citing a policy of the journal Cancer that critical letters could not be published unless investigators agreed to respond and they were refusing to respond. We appealed and the journal changed its policy and allowed us additional length to our letter.

We then requested from the investigator’s University Research Integrity Officer the specific data needed to replicate the multivariate analyses in which the investigators claimed an effect on survival. The request was denied:

The data, if disclosed, would reveal pending research ideas and techniques. Consequently, the release of such information would put those using such data for research purposes in a substantial competitive disadvantage as competitors and researchers would have access to the unpublished intellectual property of the University and its faculty and students.

Recall that we were requesting in 2014 specific data needed to evaluate analyses published in 2008.

I checked with statistician Andrew Gelman whether my objections to the multivariate analyses were well-founded and he agreed they were.

Since then, another eminent statistician Helena Kraemer has published an incisive critique of reliance in a randomized controlled trial on multivariate analyses and simple bivariate analyses do not support the efficacy of interventions. She labeled adjustments with covariates as a “source of false-positive findings.”

We appealed to the US Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity  (ORI) but they indicated no ability to enforce data sharing.

Meanwhile, the principal investigator who claimed an effect on survival accompanied National Cancer Institute program officers to conferences in Europe and the United States where she promoted her intervention as effective. I complained to Robert Croyle, Director, NCI Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences who twice has been one of the program officer’s co-presenting with her. Ironically, in his capacity as director he is supposedly facilitating data sharing for the division. Professionals were being misled to believe that this intervention would extend the lives of cancer patients, and the claim seemingly had the endorsement NCI.

I told Robert Croyle  that if only the data for the specific analyses were released, it could be demonstrated that the claims were false. Croyle did not disagree, but indicated that there was no way to compel release of the data.

The National Cancer Institute recently offered to pay the conference fees to the International Psycho-Oncology Congress in Washington DC of any professionals willing to sign up for free training in this intervention.

I don’t think I could get any qualified professional including  Croyle to debate me publicly as to whether psychotherapy increases the survival of cancer patients. Yet the promotion of the idea persists because it is consistent with the power of mind over body and disease, an attractive talking point

I have not given up in my efforts to get the data to demonstrate that this trial did not show that psychotherapy extends the survival of cancer patients, but I am blocked by the unwillingness of authorities to enforce data sharing rules that they espouse.

There are obvious parallels between the politics behind persistence of the claim in the US for psychotherapy increasing survival time for cancer patients and those in the UK about cognitive behavior therapy being sufficient treatment for schizophrenia in the absence of medication or producing recovery from the debilitating medical condition, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. There are also parallels to investigators making controversial claims based on multivariate analyses, but not allowing access to data to independently evaluate the analyses. In both cases, patient well-being suffers.

If the ICO upholds the release of data for the PACE trial in the UK, it will pressure the US NIH to stop hypocritically endorsing data sharing and rewarding investigators whose credibility depends on not sharing their data.

As seen in a PLOS One study, unwillingness to share data in response to formal requests is

associated with weaker evidence (against the null hypothesis of no effect) and a higher prevalence of apparent errors in the reporting of statistical results. The unwillingness to share data was particularly clear when reporting errors had a bearing on statistical significance.

Why the PACE investigators should not appeal

In the past, PACE investigators have been quite dismissive of criticism, appearing to have assumed that being afflicted with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis precludes a critic being taken seriously, even when the criticism is otherwise valid. However, with publication of the long-term follow-up data in Lancet Psychiatry, they are now contending with accomplished academics whose criticisms cannot be so easily brushed aside. Yes, the credibility of the investigators’ interpretations of their data are being challenged. And even if they do not believe they need to be responsive to patients, they need to be responsive to colleagues. Releasing the data is the only acceptable response and not doing so risks damage to their reputations.

QMUL, Professors White and Sharpe, let the People’s data go.