Search results

My impression is that's more directed at people posting protocols but not really working on their review? This review is written up, since we know it's been to peer-review - but have problems passing that.

:)

There are others better equipped to comment on the situation in Sweden - but this seemes to perhaps be an important judgement? maybe setting precedence for ME-patients....? :) or is taking it to court just "standard protocol"? :/

Oh, that's good! :thumbup:

But this is the one we wished they had used..... Before it ever got published. Rejection of Cochrane Reviews https://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/cochrane-review-management/rejection-cochrane-reviews

Policy on withdrawing published Cochrane Reviews (including protocols) https://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/cochrane-review-management/policy-withdrawing-published-cochrane-reviews-including-protocols Process in the event of serious errors in published...

Not in detail, I guess, but there is information from cochrane linked earlier in the thread. As I remember, there is an option for the editors to override and make the decision - but that the norm is to try and make an agreement. There seemes to be focus on the autonomy of cochrane...

And since it hasn't happened yet - I guess we're not likely to get a statement or article from Larun et al either, before the decision, whatever it is, is final?

That's the great irony in all of this - it haven't actually been withdrawn yet. The e-mail that enden up in Reuters was a request to the reviewers, for them to agree. Going public blaming patients for pressuring, they probably hoped to get Cochrane to back down and leave the review up? But...

Ah...! Never mind me :-P

Still not withdrawn - it's become part of my morning routine, the first thing to check :rofl: I'm sure they are in discussions now - as they should have been many, many months ago...

Wait, did Larun attend? From the progam she wasn't a speaker, I think?

Forgot to add, that whole blogpost is worth a read for those concered about the inner workings and governance of cochrane. Includes analysis of several of the remaing boards statements, and how they are misleading about what the rules they cite really are ment to be about etc.

@Brian Hughes - thank you for engaging in this! :)

I'm not really worried about Vogt in this, he doesn't have that much impact. I suspect many healthcare workers don't take him very serioulsy. What I do wonder, is the respons from Larun et. al, or the competance service. Surely they must feel the need to defend themselfs? This is a hard hit on...

Oh, I forgot, thank you for the summary @Kalliope :) First reaction a little bit shocked by choice of user representative. But that might actually be a clever move, and useful for patients advocates. Since the argument from the local bps-crowd was that patients representatives had bias against...

https://therealrthorat.video.blog/2018/10/24/authoritarianism-at-cochrane/

Oh, WOW! Having a high pain day and a bit emotional - this got me right in the feels. Thank you so much, David - and all the signatories! You know exactly how much this means for us :heart:

That's not really what this study was about though? The thesis they tested was: That seems relevant and fair to research to me?

The study, free access. Association of Cardiorespiratory Fitness With Long-term Mortality Among Adults Undergoing Exercise Treadmill Testing Kyle Mandsager, MD1; Serge Harb, MD1; Paul Cremer, MD1 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2707428