The authors of this PACE trial study are using a deceptive trick to get their apparently good results.
These researchers concluded in the abstract of their that:
"This study confirms that recovery from CFS is possible, and that CBT and GET are the therapies most likely to lead to recovery."
However, these authors are distorting the truth by using trickery of language centered on the word "recovery."
Their deceptive trick is this: these authors redefine the meaning of the word "recovery" within body of the text of their study, so that, under this new meaning of the term "recovery," many ME/CFS can be said to be, ahem, "recovered" following the GET/CBT therapies used in the PACE trial.
However, if you only read the study's abstract, there is no indication that the word "recovery" used therein has been totally redefined by the authors, and thus the casual reader will erroneously assume that the word "recovery" just carries its normal English meaning, which is defined as "a return to a normal state of health, mind, or strength."
Thus many people causally reading this PACE study authored by White, Goldsmith, Johnson, Chalder and Sharpe will be led to erroneously believe that GET/CBT therapies can return a ME/CFS to a normal state of health, which is not the case at all.
This deceptive trick used by the authors is a case scientific misconduct.
If you are going to redefine your terms and the words you use, you need to make sure that the precise definitions of these terms are clearly given, so that there can be no misinterpretations.
It seems apparent that the authors of this PACE study actually want their completely redefined word "recovery" to be misinterpreted. Thus, this is not a mistake by the PACE study authors, but is deliberately deceptive.
Busy doctors, who may only have time to scan study abstracts, may read this PACE study abstract, and then get the completely incorrect impression that the GET/CBT therapies used in the PACE trial can actually cure ME/CFS, which they cannot at all.