On 2017 Apr 29, Ellen M Goudsmit commented:

I am concerned that two previous efforts to correct factual errors have not been incorporated in the revision.

1. I have previously written to the main author that Wallman et al evaluated pacing, as defined by Goudsmit et al (2012). This is very different from the GET protocols used in other RCTs. I suspect that few readers would be aware of the difference between GET and pacing.<br>
2. No study assessing GET used the original or revised London criteria for classic ME (Goudsmit et al 2009). The version published by the Westcare ME Task Force is different from both as well as incomplete. Research has indicated that the Westcare ME criteria select a different sample (Jason et al, personal communication). As no study has yet assessed exercise for classic ME, one can not generalise any conclusion about efficacy from the trials in the review to patients with this disease.
3. As pointed out by Professor Jason who devised the Envelope theory, Adaptive Pacing Therapy (APT) is not based on the former. Again, this has been pointed out before.
4. APT should not be equated with the strategy of pacing recommended by many self-help groups. Pacing helps (cf. all surveys conducted to date): APT is of little value (White et al, 2011). NB: The PACE trial did not assess pacing.

Science demands precision so I hope that this third attempt to correct errors will be responded to in an appropriate manner. To repeat inaccurate information undermines the scientific process.

Goudsmit EM, Jason LA, Nijs J, et al. (2012) Pacing as a strategy to improve energy management in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: A consensus document. Disability and Rehabilitation 34(13): 1140-1147.

Goudsmit EM, Shepherd C, Dancey CP, et al. (2009) ME: Chronic fatigue syndrome or a distinct clinical entity? Health Psychology Update 18(1): 26-33. Available at: http://shop.bps.org.uk/publications/publications-by-subject/health/health-psychology-update-vol-18-no-1-2009.html

Jason LA (2017) The PACE trial missteps on pacing and patient selection. Journal of Health Psychology. Epub ahead of print 1 February.

Jason LA, Brown M, Brown A, et al. (2013) Energy conservation/envelope theory interventions. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior 1(1-2): 27-42.

ME Association (2015) ME/CFS Illness management survey results. ‘No decisions about me without me’. Part 1. Available at: http://www.meassociation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015-ME-Association-Illness-Management-Report-No-decisions-about-me-without-me-30.05.15.pdf (Various survey results in Appendix 6)

White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al. (2011) PACE trial management group. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): A randomised trial. The Lancet 377: 823–836.

On 2017 Apr 29, Ellen M Goudsmit commented:

I am concerned that two previous efforts to correct factual errors have not been incorporated in the revision.

1. I have previously written to the main author that Wallman et al evaluated pacing, as defined by Goudsmit et al (2012). This is very different from the GET protocols used in other RCTs. I suspect that few readers would be aware of the difference between GET and pacing.<br>
2. No study assessing GET used the original or revised London criteria for classic ME (Goudsmit et al 2009). The version published by the Westcare ME Task Force is different from both as well as incomplete. Research has indicated that the Westcare ME criteria select a different sample (Jason et al, personal communication). As no study has yet assessed exercise for classic ME, one can not generalise any conclusion about efficacy from the trials in the review to patients with this disease.
3. As pointed out by Professor Jason who devised the Envelope theory, Adaptive Pacing Therapy (APT) is not based on the former. Again, this has been pointed out before.
4. APT should not be equated with the strategy of pacing recommended by many self-help groups. Pacing helps (cf. all surveys conducted to date): APT is of little value (White et al, 2011). NB: The PACE trial did not assess pacing.

Science demands precision so I hope that this third attempt to correct errors will be responded to in an appropriate manner. To repeat inaccurate information undermines the scientific process.

Goudsmit EM, Jason LA, Nijs J, et al. (2012) Pacing as a strategy to improve energy management in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: A consensus document. Disability and Rehabilitation 34(13): 1140-1147.

Goudsmit EM, Shepherd C, Dancey CP, et al. (2009) ME: Chronic fatigue syndrome or a distinct clinical entity? Health Psychology Update 18(1): 26-33. Available at: http://shop.bps.org.uk/publications/publications-by-subject/health/health-psychology-update-vol-18-no-1-2009.html

Jason LA (2017) The PACE trial missteps on pacing and patient selection. Journal of Health Psychology. Epub ahead of print 1 February.

Jason LA, Brown M, Brown A, et al. (2013) Energy conservation/envelope theory interventions. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior 1(1-2): 27-42.

ME Association (2015) ME/CFS Illness management survey results. ‘No decisions about me without me’. Part 1. Available at: http://www.meassociation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015-ME-Association-Illness-Management-Report-No-decisions-about-me-without-me-30.05.15.pdf (Various survey results in Appendix 6)

White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al. (2011) PACE trial management group. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): A randomised trial. The Lancet 377: 823–836.