↓ Skip to main content

Rehabilitative treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome: long-term follow-up from the PACE trial

Overview of attention for article published in "The Lancet Psychiatry", December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
22 news outlets
blogs
14 blogs
twitter
146 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
10 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Rehabilitative treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome: long-term follow-up from the PACE trial
Published in
"The Lancet Psychiatry", December 2015
DOI 10.1016/s2215-0366(15)00317-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Sharpe, Kimberley A Goldsmith, Anthony L Johnson, Trudie Chalder, Jane Walker, Peter D White

Abstract

The PACE trial found that, when added to specialist medical care (SMC), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), or graded exercise therapy (GET) were superior to adaptive pacing therapy (APT) or SMC alone in improving fatigue and physical functioning in people with chronic fatigue syndrome 1 year after randomisation. In this pre-specified follow-up study, we aimed to assess additional treatments received after the trial and investigate long-term outcomes (at least 2 years after randomisation) within and between original treatment groups in those originally included in the PACE trial. The PACE trial was a parallel-group randomised controlled trial of patients meeting Oxford criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome who were recruited from six secondary care clinics in the UK between March 18, 2005, and Nov 28, 2008. Participants were randomly allocated to receive SMC alone or plus APT, CBT, or GET. Primary outcomes (were fatigue measured with Chalder fatigue questionnaire score and physical functioning with short form-36 subscale score, assessed 1 year after randomisation. In this long-term follow-up, we sent postal questionnaires to assess treatment received after the trial and outcomes a minimum of 2 years after randomisation. We assessed long-term differences in outcomes within and between originally randomised groups. The PACE trial is registered at http://isrctn.org, number ISRCTN54285094. Between May 8, 2008, and April 26, 2011, 481 (75%) participants from the PACE trial returned questionnaires. Median time from randomisation to return of long-term follow-up assessment was 31 months (IQR 30-32; range 24-53). 210 (44%) participants received additional treatment (mostly CBT or GET) after the trial; with participants originally assigned to SMC alone (73 [63%] of 115) or APT (60 [50%] of 119) more likely to seek treatment than those originally assigned to GET (41 [32%] of 127) or CBT (36 [31%] of 118; p<0·0001). Improvements in fatigue and physical functioning reported by participants originally assigned to CBT and GET were maintained (within-group comparison of fatigue and physical functioning, respectively, at long-term follow-up as compared with 1 year: CBT -2·2 [95% CI -3·7 to -0·6], 3·3 [0·02 to 6·7]; GET -1·3 [-2·7 to 0·1], 0·5 [-2·7 to 3·6]). Participants allocated to APT and to SMC alone in the trial improved over the follow-up period compared with 1 year (fatigue and physical functioning, respectively: APT -3·0 [-4·4 to -1·6], 8·5 [4·5 to 12·5]; SMC -3·9 [-5·3 to -2·6], 7·1 [4·0 to 10·3]). There was little evidence of differences in outcomes between the randomised treatment groups at long-term follow-up. The beneficial effects of CBT and GET seen at 1 year were maintained at long-term follow-up a median of 2·5 years after randomisation. Outcomes with SMC alone or APT improved from the 1 year outcome and were similar to CBT and GET at long-term follow-up, but these data should be interpreted in the context of additional therapies having being given according to physician choice and patient preference after the 1 year trial final assessment. Future research should identify predictors of response to CBT and GET and also develop better treatments for those who respond to neither. UK Medical Research Council, Department of Health for England, Scottish Chief Scientist Office, Department for Work and Pensions, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 146 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 81 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Unspecified 11 13%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 24 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 27%
Psychology 20 24%
Unspecified 16 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Other 15 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 367. 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 19 March 2019.
All research outputs
#29,939
of 13,526,749 outputs
Outputs from "The Lancet Psychiatry"
#56
of 1,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#834
of 282,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from "The Lancet Psychiatry"
#2
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,526,749 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 282,932 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 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.