Research can involve many different types of studies, but the most highly valued type is called a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT).

And that is why this study on the Lightning Process is so important.

Researchers at the University of Bristol ran an RCT on the Lightning Process for those with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), and the positive results are excellent news for those looking for researched-backed approaches that help with this illness.

 

Positive results for CFS

The study found that when the Lightning Process was added to the usual NHS Specialist Medical Care (SMC) for CFS, it improved levels of fatigue, physical function and school attendance.

This is a breakthrough for treatment options as it shows the Lightning Process can improve recovery rates for those already receiving SMC.  SMC is one of the most researched NHS treatments for CFS.  It focuses on improving sleep and using activity management.  It is delivered by doctors, psychologists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists.

Equally impressive was the fact that the results for those taking the Lightning Process outperformed the effects of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) as they continued at 6 and 12 months after the Lightning Process course.

RCTs are designed to show if a treatment is effective, and this study showed that, with the researchers concluding that, when combined with SMC, ‘the LP is effective’.

 

No side-effects

RCTs are also designed to show if a treatment causes negative side effects or ‘harms’.  The researchers also reported that there were no negative effects found from attending the Lightning Process.

 

Cost-effective

This study also looked into the question ‘Is the Lightning Process cost-effective?’  They used two ways of identifying this, one found the Lightning Process was cost-effective.  The other was unsure.  This led to the researchers’ conclusion ‘The Lightning Process is effective and is probably cost-effective’.

 

Conclusions

The researchers concluded: This is the first randomised trial investigating the effectiveness of the LP for any condition.  It is the first trial that has demonstrated the effectiveness of an intervention other than CBT for paediatric CFS/ME.

The addition of the LP to SMC improved physical function at 6 months in adolescents with CFS/ME and this difference increased at 12 months.  The addition of LP also improved fatigue and anxiety at 6 months, and fatigue, anxiety and depression at 12 months.  Participants in the LP arm were attending 1 day more of school a week, at 12 months.

They end by suggesting that further research is needed to understand why LP improves outcomes at 6 and 12 months and which aspects of the LP contribute to its effectiveness.

The full study is published here.