Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

This article is written in response to the linked editorial by Dr Geraghty about the adaptive Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy; a randomised Evaluation (PACE) trial, which we led, implemented and published. The PACE trial compared four treatments for people diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. All participants in the trial received specialist medical care. The trial found that adding cognitive behaviour therapy or graded exercise therapy to specialist medical care was as safe as, and more effective than, adding adaptive pacing therapy or specialist medical care alone. Dr Geraghty has challenged these findings. In this article, we suggest that Dr Geraghty's views are based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the PACE trial; these are corrected.

Original publication

DOI

10.1177/1359105316688953

Type

Journal article

Journal

J Health Psychol

Publication Date

08/2017

Volume

22

Pages

1113 - 1117

Keywords

chronic fatigue syndrome, clinical trials, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, treatment, Cognitive Therapy, Dissent and Disputes, Exercise Therapy, Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome