reactions to Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) and CBT based on GET:
ACT: Results from 10 ME/CFS surveys from the past and a request for further
information
http://tinyurl.com/lupquj
i.e.
http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0906E&L=CO-CURE&P=R427&I=-3
Proponents of GET such as Peter White sometimes try to dismiss the
significance of these surveys.
Here is one way can respond to their attempts to dismiss the findings.
----
Proponents of GET can claim that the GET wasn't done under an appropriate
specialist and thus doesn't count.
But the results of a AfME/AYME survey from 2008 are useful for this.
This was based on experiences of treatments over the previous three years.
Here are the results for GET (from:
http://afme.wordpress.com/5-treatments-and-symptoms/ ):
=================
Table: Who administered GET / how helpful was it?
Who provided the treatment? Helpful No Change Worse Total
GP 23 (43.40%) 6 (11.32%) 24 (45.28%) 53
NHS specialist 162 (45.63%) 82 (23.10%) 111 (31.27%) 355
Other 91 (57.23%) 22 (13.84%) 46 (28.93%) 159
Total 276 (48.68%) 110 (19.40%) 181 (31.92%) 567
====================
Given the complaints that proponents of GET can make, one could collapse
that into the following:
=================
Who provided the GET? Worse; No Change or helpful; Total
GET with NHS Specialist 111 244 355
GET with GP or Other 70 142 212
Total 181 386 567
====================
I'm appending some stats on this.
So for example, one could write a sentence something like: "a large UK
survey found that there was no significant difference between the amount of
adverse reactions endured by those who did Graded Exercise Therapy under an
NHS specialist (111/355 or 31.3%) compared to those did GET elsewhere
(70/212 or 33.0%) (Chi^2 (with Yates' correction)=0.115, df=1, p=0.73)"
Unlike with drugs, watchdogs aren't really closely watching out for adverse
reactions to non-pharmacological treatments such as GET and practitioners
don't seem to feel the need to report the adverse reactions so, for the
foreseeable future, it's up to us to highlight them, it seems.
Tom Kindlon
====================================
http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/contingency2.cfm
Analyze a 2x2 contingency table
Worse No Change or helpful Total
GET with NHS Specialist 111 244 355
GET with GP or Other 70 142 212
Total 181 386 567
Fisher's exact test
The two-tailed P value equals 0.7098
The association between rows (groups) and columns (outcomes)
is considered to be not statistically significant.
[Aside: The Fisher's test is called an "exact" test, so you'd think there is
exactly one way to compute the P value. Not so. While everyone agrees on how
to compute one one-sided (one-tailed) P value, there are actually three
methods to compute "exact" two-sided (two-tailed) P value from Fisher's
test. This calculator uses the method of summing small P values Read more
http://graphpad.com/faq/viewfaq.cfm?faq=985. Prior to 5-April-2004 this
QuickCalc used the "mid-P" calculation which resulted in a different
two-tailed P value.]
=== Alternatively ===
Chi-square with Yates' correction
Analyze a 2x2 contingency table
Worse No Change or helpful
Total
GET with NHS Specialist 111 244 355
GET with GP or Other 70 142 212
Total 181 386
567
Chi-square with Yates correction
Chi squared equals 0.115 with 1 degrees of freedom.
The two-tailed P value equals 0.7341
The association between rows (groups) and columns (outcomes)
is considered to be not statistically significant.
==Alternatively==
Analyze a 2x2 contingency table
Worse No Change or helpful Total
GET with NHS Specialist 111 244 355
GET with GP or Other 70 142 212
Total 181 386 567
Chi-square without Yates correction
Chi squared equals 0.187 with 1 degrees of freedom.
The two-tailed P value equals 0.6652
The association between rows (groups) and columns (outcomes)
is considered to be not statistically significant.
---------------------------------------------
Send posts to CO-CURE@listserv.nodak.edu
Unsubscribe at http://www.co-cure.org/unsub.htm
---------------------------------------------
Co-Cure's purpose is to provide information from across the spectrum of
opinion concerning medical, research and political aspects of ME/CFS and/or
FMS. We take no position on the validity of any specific scientific or
political opinion expressed in Co-Cure posts, and we urge readers to
research the various opinions available before assuming any one
interpretation is definitive. The Co-Cure website <www.co-cure.org> has a
link to our complete archive of posts as well as articles of central
importance to the issues of our community.
---------------------------------------------
