Investigator Bias and the PACE Trial

My short commentary on the role of bias in the PACE trial has been published by the Journal of Health Psychology.  The piece develops an analogy between the role of judges and investigators in research trials, concluding that latent or implicit bias needs to be addressed in both sorts of trials, and suggesting that the recusal standard under U.S. law -- whether "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" -- may be useful in both contexts.

Here is the gist:

Investigator bias and the PACE trial - Mar 07, 2017

By virtue of their own experience, the PACE investigators were confident in the effectiveness of CBT and GET as ME/CFS treatments. Their earlier public statements—attributing ME/CFS symptoms to “false cognitions”—certainly appeared to dispose them toward a result. Coupled with their mid-trial revision of certain outcome measures—in a direction favorable to their own theories of improvement and recovery—it is reasonable to conclude that non-blinded trials of CBT/GET should be designed and overseen by investigators with no preexisting stake in the outcome.

You can read the entire commentary here.

Comments

[ComusBassington]

Thank you for fetching attention to the lack of integrity of those concerned in promoting the PACE trial. They have forged lucrative careers at expense of patients wellbeing.