Comment on: Cognitive behaviour therapy for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial. [BMJ. 2005]
Editor—I have concerns about the design and interpretation of the study reported by Stulemeijer et al on cognitive behaviour therapy for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome.1 The trial arms were not matched for the number of contacts with healthcare professionals. Experience from larger and more carefully controlled randomised interventional trials of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome has clearly shown that short term improvement in symptoms is related directly to the maintenance of regular contacts with healthcare professionals rather than the therapeutic effect of the intervention itself and consequently, the improvement is not sustained once the contact is lost.2
The authors did not offer patients in their waiting list the opportunity to meet therapists regularly for five months but without having cognitive behaviour therapy. Few follow up data on patients in the intervention arm show that the specific treatment benefit was carried forward without regular contacts with the therapists. A cautious approach is essential in inferring direct benefit from cognitive behaviour therapy in the intervention arm (as opposed to short term benefit from close contact with therapists). The level of activity in some of their participants whom the authors considered to be passive remained unclear.
You can read the rest of this comment here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC555921/
Source: Chaudhuri A. Cognitive behaviour therapy for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome: data are insufficient and conclusion inappropriate. BMJ. 2005 Apr 2;330(7494):789-90; author reply 790. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC555921/ (Full article)