White, P D, Goldsmith, K A, Johnson, A L et al. · Lancet (London, England) · 2011 · DOI
This study compared four treatment approaches for ME/CFS: specialist medical care alone, specialist medical care plus adaptive pacing therapy (APT), cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), or graded exercise therapy (GET). The researchers found that CBT and GET, when added to standard medical care, helped reduce fatigue and improve physical function over 52 weeks. Adaptive pacing therapy did not show additional benefits compared to medical care alone. All treatments were considered safe based on the serious adverse events recorded.
This is a landmark study that directly addressed patient concerns about treatment safety and effectiveness by evaluating four different approaches in a large randomised trial. The findings have influenced clinical guidelines and treatment recommendations internationally, making it important for patients and researchers to understand both what it showed and its limitations. The study's transparent examination of safety data in response to patient advocacy groups represents an important dialogue between research and the patient community.
This study does not prove that CBT and GET are appropriate or safe for all ME/CFS patients, as it excluded individuals with the most severe illness and did not follow participants long-term beyond 52 weeks to assess durability or delayed harms. The use of Oxford criteria (which has broader diagnostic scope) rather than stricter international criteria for ME/CFS, combined with unmasked participant reporting of subjective outcomes, introduces potential bias. The study also does not establish whether improvements reflect physiological recovery or changes in symptom perception and reporting.
About the PEM badge: “PEM required” means post-exertional malaise was an explicit required diagnostic criterion for participant inclusion in this study — not that PEM was studied, observed, or discussed. Studies using criteria that do not require PEM (e.g. Fukuda, Oxford) are tagged “PEM not required”. How the atlas works →
The first block is for the primary paper and is the citation you should use in research work. The atlas-snapshot line only applies if you are specifically referring to this atlas’s reading of the paper on the date shown.
Primary citation
White, P D, Goldsmith, K A, Johnson, A L, Potts, L, Walwyn, R, DeCesare, J C, et al. (2011). Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial.. Lancet (London, England). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60096-2
BibTeX
@article{mecfsatlas-white-2011-comparison-adaptive,
author = {White, P D and Goldsmith, K A and Johnson, A L and Potts, L and Walwyn, R and DeCesare, J C and Baber, H L and Burgess, M and Clark, L V and Cox, D L and Bavinton, J and Angus, B J and Murphy, G and Murphy, M and O'Dowd, H and Wilks, D and McCrone, P and Chalder, T and Sharpe, M and PACE trial management group},
title = {Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial.},
journal = {Lancet (London, England)},
year = {2011},
doi = {10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60096-2},
note = {PubMed: 21334061},
url = {https://www.mecfsatlas.com/evidence/white-2011-comparison-adaptive},
}Atlas snapshot reference
ME/CFS Atlas. Generator v1 / Scanner v1.4 / policy v0.1. Accessed 2026-05-27. https://www.mecfsatlas.com/evidence/white-2011-comparison-adaptive
Contribute
Private, reviewed by a human. Not a public comment thread.