2018
DOI: 10.1177/2055102918805187
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Graded exercise therapy for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome is not effective and unsafe. Re-analysis of a Cochrane review

Abstract: The analysis of the 2017 Cochrane review reveals flaws, which means that contrary to its findings, there is no evidence that graded exercise therapy is effective. Because of the failure to report harms adequately in the trials covered by the review, it cannot be said that graded exercise therapy is safe. The analysis of the objective outcomes in the trials provides sufficient evidence to conclude that graded exercise therapy is an ineffective treatment for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
26
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
1
26
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It would be impossible to critique all CBT trial evidence within the confines of this article, thus we point readers to reviews of the field (Rimbaut et al, 2016) and systematic reviews (Larun et al, 2016; Price et al, 2008) that appear to show, prima facie, that CBT and GET outperform other treatments for ME/CFS (mostly usual care) with small-to-modest effect sizes. However, this evidence is increasingly contested by re-analysis of data from clinical trials (Geraghty et al, 2017; Wilshire et al, 2018) and meta-reviews (Vink and Vink-Niese, 2018).…”
Section: Problematic Evidence From Clinical Trials and Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It would be impossible to critique all CBT trial evidence within the confines of this article, thus we point readers to reviews of the field (Rimbaut et al, 2016) and systematic reviews (Larun et al, 2016; Price et al, 2008) that appear to show, prima facie, that CBT and GET outperform other treatments for ME/CFS (mostly usual care) with small-to-modest effect sizes. However, this evidence is increasingly contested by re-analysis of data from clinical trials (Geraghty et al, 2017; Wilshire et al, 2018) and meta-reviews (Vink and Vink-Niese, 2018).…”
Section: Problematic Evidence From Clinical Trials and Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…39% were working or studying at least part time at trial entry, compared with 47% after treatment. However, as found by the reanalysis of the Cochrane exercise review for ME/CFS [159], there were a number of issues with this study. Participants in the exercise group had sessions of five to fifteen minutes, increasing to a maximum of thirty minutes, at least five days a week.…”
Section: Smc (No Treatment)mentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Regarding the reporting of harmful study events, it is challenging to conclude on how proportionate the occurrence of harmful/unwanted events is to the observed effects. Information on the occurrence of adverse/unwanted events is essential, as research conducted by Kindlon (2011) and Vink and Vink-Niese (2018) showed that over the past 20 years patients have consistently reported either no or adverse effects from these interventions. However, not reporting adverse events is typical for this field as psychotherapy trials generally report infrequently on adverse outcomes (Duggan et al, 2014; Jonsson et al 2014; Vaughan et al, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%