Further Commentary on the PACE Trial: Biased Methods and Unreliable Outcomes

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

Abstract

Geraghty (2016) outlines a range of controversies surrounding publication of results from the PACE trial and discusses a freedom of information case brought by a patient refused access to data from the trial. The PACE authors offer a response, writing “Dr Geraghty’s views are based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the PACE trial” (White et al., 2017). This paper draws on expert commentaries to further detail the critical methodological failures and biases identified in the PACE trial, that undermine the reliability and credibility of the major findings to emerge from this trial.

Bibliographical metadata

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Health Psychology
Volume22
Issue number9
Early online date14 Jun 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017