Trial By Error, Continued: The Dutch Studies (Again!), and an Esther Crawley Bonus

In this study, providing CBT in groups of four or eight patients worked significantly better than placing patients on a waiting list and providing them with absolutely nothing. Of course, no one could possibly take these findings to mean that group CBT specifically is an effective treatment—except they did. When I’m reading this stuff I sometimes feel like I’m going out of my mind. Do I really have to pick through every one of these papers to point out flaws that a first-year epidemiology student could spot? One big issue here is how these folks piggy-back one bad study on top of another to build what appears to be a robust body of research but is, in fact, a house of cards. When you expose the cracks in the foundational studies, the whole edifice comes tumbling down. A case in point: a 2007 Dutch study that explored the effect of CBT on “self-reported cognitive impairments and neuropsychological test performance.” Using data from two earlier studies, the investigators concluded that CBT reduced self-reported cognitive impairment but did not improve neuropsychological test performance. Which studies was this 2007 study based on? Well, one of them was the very problematic 2004 study I have just discussed–the one that found CBT effective when compared to nothing. The other was the 2001 study in The Lancet that I wrote about in my last post. As I noted, this Lancet study claimed to be using the CDC criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome, but then waived the requir...
Source: virology blog - Category: Virology Authors: Tags: Commentary Information CBT/GET chronic fatigue syndrome cognitive behavior therapy Esther Crawley FITNET-NHS graded exercise therapy mecfs PACE Source Type: blogs