Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
Peter White
(section)
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== The PACE trial === Peter White was the lead investigator of the PACE trial, a 5 million pound study that investigated the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), graded exercise therapy (GET) and adaptive pacing therapy (APT) in a sample of more than 600 CFS patients.<ref name=":19" /> While the reported findings indicated that CBT and GET were effective treatments for CFS, the authors have been criticized for misrepresenting the trials’ results.<ref name="Wilshire2018" /><ref name="Tuller20151021">{{Cite web|url=http://www.virology.ws/2015/10/21/trial-by-error-i/| title = TRIAL BY ERROR: The Troubling Case of the PACE Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study|website=[[Virology blog]]|access-date=2019-08-19}}</ref><ref name=":21">{{Cite journal | last = Geraghty | first = Keith J. | date = Aug 2017| title = 'PACE-Gate': When clinical trial evidence meets open data access|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27807258|journal=Journal of Health Psychology|volume=22|issue=9|pages=1106–1112|doi=10.1177/1359105316675213|issn=1461-7277|pmid=27807258}}</ref><ref name="Williams2016PW" /> The PACE authors deviated from the methods specified in their protocol, without explaining these changes in full in their publications or how the changes impacted the reported findings.<ref name="Tuller20151021" /><ref name=":21" /> Following inconsistencies in the economic analysis of the PACE trial, health psychologist James Coyne filed a request to the journal PLOS ONE to access the data of the trial, a request that was dismissed as vexatious by Kings College London.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160314024024/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23608059/PACE%20F325-15%20-%20Prof.%20James%20Coyne%20-%20Response-2.pdf| title = Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the Act") | date = 2016-03-14 | website = web.archive.org|access-date=2019-08-19}}</ref> PLOS ONE has since issued an expression of concern about the publication in question.<ref>{{Cite journal | last = White | first = Peter D. | last2 = Goldsmith | first2 = Kimberley A. | last3 = Johnson | first3 = Anthony L. | last4 = Knapp | first4 = Martin | last5 = Chalder | first5 = Trudie | last6 = Sharpe | first6 = Michael | last7 = McCrone | first7 = Paul | date = 2012-08-01| title = Adaptive Pacing, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Graded Exercise, and Specialist Medical Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis|url=https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040808|journal=PLOS ONE|language=en|volume=7|issue=8| pages = e40808|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0040808|issn=1932-6203|pmc=3411573|pmid=22870204}}</ref> The PACE authors have refused to share the trial's data for independent reanalysis due to concerns that “patients might be personally identified by releasing their data.”<ref name=":22">{{Cite journal | last = White | first = Peter D | last2 = Chalder | first2 = Trudie | last3 = Sharpe | first3 = Michael | last4 = Angus | first4 = Brian J | last5 = Baber | first5 = Hannah L | last6 = Bavinton | first6 = Jessica | last7 = Burgess | first7 = Mary | last8 = Clark | first8 = Lucy V | last9 = Cox | first9 = Diane L | date = 2017-01-24| title = Response to the editorial by Dr Geraghty|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1359105316688953|journal=Journal of Health Psychology|language=en-US|volume=22|issue=9|pages=1113–1117|doi=10.1177/1359105316688953|issn=1359-1053}}</ref> Peter White has also criticized the "All Trials campaign" as it encourages authors to share their datasets publicly.<ref>{{Cite journal | last = White | first = Peter D. | date = 2013-05-28| title = Is sharing data from clinical trials always a good idea?|url=https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3379|journal=BMJ|language=en|volume=346|pages=f3379|doi=10.1136/bmj.f3379|issn=1756-1833|pmid=23714258}}</ref> During a 2015 first tribunal hearing on the release of the PACE trial data, Professor Ross Anderson defended the PACE authors’ decision by making “wild speculations” about “young men, borderline sociopathic or psychopathic” being attached to criticism of the PACE trial.<ref name=":23">{{Cite web|url=https://www.meaction.net/2016/08/16/tribunal-orders-release-of-pace-data/| title = Tribunal orders release of PACE data | date = 2016-08-16 | website = #MEAction|language=en-US|access-date=2019-08-19}}</ref> The tribunal considered these claims to be unfounded and ordered the release of some of the anonymized data of the trial.<ref name=":23" /> An independent reanalysis showed that the PACE authors had inflated improvement and recovery rates threefold.<ref name="Wilshire2018" /> An open letter signed by more than 100 prominent ME/CFS experts including researchers, clinicians, and MPs has called for “an independent re-analysis of the individual-level trial data, with appropriate sensitivity analyses.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.virology.ws/2018/08/13/trial-by-error-open-letter-to-the-lancet-version-3-0/| title = Trial By Error: Open Letter to The Lancet, version 3.0 | website = [[Virology blog]]|language=en-US|access-date=2019-08-19}}</ref> In a letter to Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet journal, Peter White et al stated: “The PACE trial paper refers to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) which is operationally defined; it does not purport to be studying CFS/ME”;<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg53/evidence/appendix-c-stakeholder-consultation-comments-table-pdf-4602203536| title = CG53 Evidence - Appendix C: Stakeholder Comments | last = NICE | first = | authorlink = National Institute for Health and Care Excellence | date = | website = | page = 43|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=Aug 22, 2019}}</ref> however the authors separately stated their results had also been validated against a modified version of the [[London criteria|London criteria for ME]]. According to White et al. criticism of the PACE trial is based on “misunderstandings and misrepresentations”<ref name=":22" />. In 2016 article in the Guardian newspaper, White wrote that "If my team’s research on ME is rejected, the patients will suffer.”<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/30/me-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-patients-suffer-put-off-treatments-our-research| title = If my team’s research on ME is rejected, the patients will suffer {{!}} Peter White | last = White | first = Peter | date = 2016-09-30|work=The Guardian|access-date=2019-08-19|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}}</ref>
Summary:
Please make sure your edits are consistent with
MEpedia's guidelines
.
By saving changes, you agree to the
Terms of use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 3.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
This page is a member of 3 hidden categories:
Category:All articles with unsourced statements
Category:Articles with unsourced statements from unknown year
Category:Pages with reference errors
Navigation
Navigation
Skip to content
Main page
Browse
Become an editor
Random page
Popular pages
Abbreviations
Glossary
About MEpedia
Links for editors
Contents
Guidelines
Recent changes
Pages in need
Search
Help
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special pages
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs