King's College London

Research portal

Response to the editorial by Dr Geraghty

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Peter D White, Trudie Chalder, Michael Sharpe, Brian J Angus, Hannah L Baber, Jessica Bavinton, Mary Burgess, Lucy V Clark, Diane L Cox, Julia C DeCesare, Kimberley A Goldsmith, Anthony L Johnson, Paul McCrone, Gabrielle Murphy, Maurice Murphy, Hazel O'Dowd, Laura Potts, Rebacca Walwyn, David Wilks

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1113-1117
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Health Psychology
Issue number9
Early online date24 Jan 2017
StatePublished - 1 Aug 2017


  • Response to the editorial_WHITE_Publishedonline2January2017_GREEN AAM

    Response_to_the_editorial_WHITE_Publishedonline2January2017_GREEN_AAM.pdf, 299 KB, application/pdf


    Accepted author manuscript


    This is the peer-reviewed accepted manuscript of a paper published in Journal of Health Psychology, v.22(9), pp. 1113-1117 (Sage, 2017). The final published version is available at
    © The Author(s) 2017

King's Authors


This article is written in response to the linked editorial by Dr Geraghty about the adaptive Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy; a randomised Evaluation (PACE) trial, which we led, implemented and published. The PACE trial compared four treatments for people diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. All participants in the trial received specialist medical care. The trial found that adding cognitive behaviour therapy or graded exercise therapy to specialist medical care was as safe as, and more effective than, adding adaptive pacing therapy or specialist medical care alone. Dr Geraghty has challenged these findings. In this article, we suggest that Dr Geraghty's views are based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the PACE trial; these are corrected.

Download statistics

No data available

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454