| Title |
Protocol for the PACE trial: A randomised controlled trial of adaptive pacing, cognitive behaviour therapy, and graded exercise as supplements to standardised specialist medical care versus standardised specialist medical care alone for patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis or encephalopathy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Neurology, March 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2377-7-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter D White, Michael C Sharpe, Trudie Chalder, Julia C DeCesare, Rebecca Walwyn, the PACE trial group |
| Abstract |
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS, also called myalgic encephalomyelitis /encephalopathy or ME) is a debilitating condition with no known cause or cure. Improvement may occur with medical care and additional therapies of pacing, cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy. The latter two therapies have been found to be efficacious in small trials, but patient organisations surveys have reported adverse effects. Although pacing has been advocated by patient organisations, it lacks empirical support. Specialist medical care is commonly provided but its efficacy when given alone is not established. This trial compares the efficacy of the additional therapies when added to specialist medical care against specialist medical care alone. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 102 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 34 | 33% |
| United States | 4 | 4% |
| Australia | 3 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 3% |
| Norway | 2 | 2% |
| Ireland | 2 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 45 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 87 | 85% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 10% |
| Scientists | 3 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 192 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 17% |
| Researcher | 31 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 42 | 21% |
| Unknown | 29 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 50 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 8 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 32 | 16% |
| Unknown | 41 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 118. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2023.
All research outputs
#357,378
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#18
of 2,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#542
of 90,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 90,148 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.