Talk:PACE trial

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 4 May 2024 by reviewer Femke (talk · contribs).

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Usage of content from other pages

Significant parts of this page are reused from the controversy section of the management of ME/CFS page, which will be heavily shortened after this page is published, due to being WP:Undue YannLK (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Great work so far. I would add the following:

Explain the strenghts of the trial a bit better, for instance using this Wiltshire et al paper. It's true that sources are generally negative, but I think we are slightly more negative that the average source on the topic.
Make sure your citations direclty support your statement. Do not cite the original study to support statements that criticise it. The original study did not say explicitly that some people met the SF-36 criterion for recovery upon study entry (I've replaced this with a critique instead). Similarly, page 3 of the Cochrane review does not explicitly say they rely mostly on White 2011.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Femke. I now have addressed both points.

1) I added a paragraph in the study design subsection of the initial study and findings section which goes over the study’s strengths (large sample size, extended duration etc.). Additionally I have added a paragraph to the reanalysis subsection of the controversy and criticism section which goes over the reanalyses with more nuance, for example explaining that some subjective outcome measures did still see an improvement in GET and CBT groups.

2) As for the sources, I reread the article and double checked sources I thought would be at risk of not fully supporting sentences. I found some cases like these, and in these cases, I either changed the sentences to better match the sources used or found novel sources which supported the sentences. As for the specific point on Cochrane, I decided to change from “largely based on the PACE trial” to “partially based …” because that seemed to fit the source better based on a reread.

I am now going to submit the article for review. Thank you for your help so far. YannLK (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Health research authority

The report from the HRA should be added. https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/science-technology/Correspondence/190129-Sir-Jonathan-Montgomery-Health-Research-Authority-to-Chair-re-PACE-trial.pdf BlenFans (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see https://www.proquest.com/openview/50b7d9b4a5b9693a1d6342d89aea95a3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2043523 BlenFans (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now added. BlenFans (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]