Response to Adamson et al. (2020): ‘Cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome: Outcomes from a specialist clinic in the UK’

  • Brian M. Hughes
  • , David Tuller

Research output: Contribution to a Journal (Peer & Non Peer)Review articlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In a paper published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Adamson et al. (2020) interpret data as showing that cognitive behavioural therapy leads to improvement in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic fatigue. Their research is undermined by several methodological limitations, including: (a) sampling ambiguity; (b) weak measurement; (c) survivor bias; (d) missing data and (e) lack of a control group. Unacknowledged sample attrition renders statements in the published Abstract misleading with regard to points of fact. That the paper was approved by peer reviewers and editors illustrates how non-rigorous editorial processes contribute to systematic publication bias.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1783-1789
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Health Psychology
Volume27
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2022
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • chronic fatigue syndrome
  • cognitive behaviour therapy
  • health care systems
  • methodology
  • quantitative methods

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Response to Adamson et al. (2020): ‘Cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome: Outcomes from a specialist clinic in the UK’'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this