Results of the PACE follow-up study are uninterpretable

James Charles Coyne, Keith R Laws

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


The PACE follow-up study1 is something of a curate's egg, admirable in ambition, but interpretatively indigestible. Although the PACE programme of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or graded exercise therapy (GET) led patients to report less fatigue or greater physical function than patients in the adaptive pacing therapy and specialist medical care groups in the short term, evidence in the long-term follow-up is unconvincing. The lack of between-group differences at follow-up takes precedence over within-group differences, which are inflated by attribution of any change associated with non-specific factors to the specific interventions.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e6-e7
Number of pages2
JournalThe lancet. Psychiatry
Issue number2
Early online date18 Jan 2016
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2016


Dive into the research topics of 'Results of the PACE follow-up study are uninterpretable'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this