Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Bad Statistics, Bad Reporting, Bad Impact on Patients: The Story of the PACE Trial

5,236 views

Published on

A talk by Julie Rehmeyer at the Joint Statistics Meetings, 2016.

In 2011, headlines worldwide announced that an effective treatment had been found for a debilitating illness that affects 17 million people around the world. The study was published in The Lancet. Great news!

Except that it wasn't. Patients with the illness, known as chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis, quickly decried the study as having severe scientific problems. Furthermore, it didn't fit with their experience: patients reported that the two treatments -- psychotherapy and gradually increasing exercise -- had little impact and could indeed be dangerous. They analyzed the study and spelled out its serious flaws, particularly statistical ones, in scientific journals, but the authors dismissed the concerns as prejudice against psychiatry.

In late 2015, journalist David Tuller wrote a 14,000-word expose of the flaws in the trial, citing the grave concerns of researchers. Dr. Ronald Davis of Stanford University, for example, said, "I'm shocked that the Lancet published it.I don't understand how it got through any kind of peer review."

I'll describe the problems with the science, with the functioning of the scientific institutions, and with the journalism.

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

Bad Statistics, Bad Reporting, Bad Impact on Patients: The Story of the PACE Trial

  1. 1. Julie Rehmeyer Contributing Editor, Discover
  2. 2. Rare
  3. 3. Recovery
  4. 4. Criteria:
  5. 5. Criteria: Function
  6. 6. Criteria: Function Fatigue
  7. 7. Criteria: Function Fatigue Improvement
  8. 8. Criteria: Function Fatigue Improvement Definition
  9. 9. Criteria: Function Fatigue Improvement Definition
  10. 10. Trial Entry
  11. 11. Trial Entry
  12. 12. Trial Entry
  13. 13. Trial Entry
  14. 14. Trial Entry
  15. 15. Trial Entry
  16. 16. Criteria: Function Fatigue Improvement Definition
  17. 17. Criteria: Function Fatigue Improvement Definition
  18. 18. Criteria: Function Fatigue Improvement Definition
  19. 19. Criteria: Function Fatigue Improvement Definition
  20. 20. Criteria: Function Fatigue Improvement Definition
  21. 21. Criteria: Function Fatigue Improvement Definition
  22. 22. Criteria: Function Fatigue Improvement Definition
  23. 23. Improvement
  24. 24. or Which Patients?
  25. 25. Meet Oxford criteria Not considered in subgroup analysis
  26. 26. David Tuller’s work: virology.ws/mecfs
  27. 27. Thank you. Julie Rehmeyer jrehmeyer@gmail.com

×