- BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 01/2013; 347:f5731.
- European Journal of Clinical Investigation 09/2012; 42(12):1360. · 3.37 Impact Factor
- The Lancet 08/2012; 380(9841):561; author reply 562. · 39.06 Impact Factor
- Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 06/2011; 92(6):1015; author reply 1015-6. · 2.18 Impact Factor
- The Lancet 05/2011; 377(9780):1833; author reply 1834-5. · 39.06 Impact Factor
- Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 01/2011; 80(2):110-1; author reply 112. · 7.23 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Across different medical fields, authors have placed a greater emphasis on the reporting of efficacy measures than harms in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), particularly of nonpharmacologic interventions. To rectify this situation, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group and other researchers have issued guidance to improve the reporting of harms. Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) based on increasing activity levels are often recommended for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS). However, exercise-related physiological abnormalities have been documented in recent studies and high rates of adverse reactions to exercise have been recorded in a number of patient surveys. Fifty-one percent of survey respondents (range 28-82%, n=4338, 8 surveys) reported that GET worsened their health while 20% of respondents (range 7-38%, n=1808, 5 surveys) reported similar results for CBT. Using the CONSORT guidelines as a starting point, this paper identifies problems with the reporting of harms in previous RCTs and suggests potential strategies for improvement in the future. Issues involving the heterogeneity of subjects and interventions, tracking of adverse events, trial participants’ compliance to therapies, and measurement of harms using patient-oriented and objective outcome measures are discussed. The recently published PACE (Pacing, graded activity, and cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised evaluation) trial which explicitly aimed to assess “safety”, as well as effectiveness, is also analysed in detail. Healthcare professionals, researchers and patients need high quality data on harms to appropriately assess the risks versus benefits of CBT and GET.Bulletin of the IACFS/ME (peer-reviewed). 01/2011; 19:59-111.
- Psychosomatic Medicine 06/2010; 72(5):506-7; author reply 507-9. · 4.08 Impact Factor
- Journal of rehabilitation medicine: official journal of the UEMS European Board of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 02/2010; 42(2):184; author reply 184-6. · 1.88 Impact Factor
Article: FINE trial for CFS. Missing data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 01/2010; 340:c2990.
- Psychological Medicine 10/2009; 40(2):352. · 5.59 Impact Factor
- Pain Medicine 10/2009; 10(6):1144; author reply 1145-6. · 2.46 Impact Factor
- Brain 02/2009; 132(Pt 7):e119; author reply e120. · 9.92 Impact Factor
- BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 02/2009; 338:b1371.
- Bulletin of the IACFS/ME. 01/2009; 17:84-85.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BMJ 2003;327:E190-E191 (4 October), doi:10.1136/bmjusa.03020004 (published 26 March 2003) Link is: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmjusa.03020004v1 My name is given as Kinlon TP - their error - Kin(d)lon TP.BMJ USA. 01/2003; BMJ:E190-191.