Discussion in 'Research methodology news and research' started by Andy, Oct 14, 2019.
With Jonathan Sterne, from Crawley's SMILE trial, and Julian Higgins who is a co-author with Crawley on this still unpublished review of 'recovery' in pediatric CFS: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=9303
Didn't know that. Higgins is a big name. He's the main author of the Cochrane handbook, both the old and new version. He's also from Bristol.
Oh dear. Gawd help us.
I anticipate them having a lovely time in Chile.
I expect the whole point of the exercise (conference) is merely to write off the expense of a nice travel destination .
As for learning anything useful on the subject of developing robust protocols for the type of 'evidence' we're used to being assaulted with . . . I simply expect more robust assault.
I admit to an occasional morbid fascination with the mind-set that can torture ideas so effectively to align them with their preferred thinking. All the while proclaiming some higher-ground -robust analysis-- honest/real results.
Maybe I'm way off the mark on this one. I have no optimism left for the integrity from certain quarters.
Let's hope they do better.
(not related but also saw this
"We are pleased to announce the re-schedule of the 2019 Methods Symposium, which was postponed due to the cancelled 2019 Cochrane Colloquium"
Date: Wednesday 5 February 2020
Type: Interactive webinar
Co-chairs: Professor Julian Higgins and Dr Joanne McKenzie
You will need a Cochrane Account to sign up for this webinar. If you don’t have a Cochrane Account you will be able to register for free on the following page. You will be able to use this account for all future activity. A brief guidance on how to sign up using your Cochrane Account is available here and if you have any problems, please ...
Sterne seems to miss now.
Another review with Crawley and Higgins as co-authors:
see also: https://www.s4me.info/threads/esther-crawley-what-drives-her-plus-quotes.1139/page-6#post-210718
Cochrane just straight up trolling us now? Would they accept a review on vaccine safety by Andrew Wakefield? At this point why not?
That's not a Cochrane review.
Ah, it uses Cochrane as a source. Which is... odd. A meta-meta-review, ongoing for 4 years it seems now.
Busywork for no purpose. I don't understand how people in this field can choose to dedicate effort to pointless tasks. Oh well.
I'm not sure whether the Cochrane library stores only (their) reviews. Even if they did, you could search the reviews for original studies/ sources, too. So not sure if it's critizable to use the Cochrane library for doing reviews.
Anyway, it would be intersting to know why those reviews aren't published yet.
Separate names with a comma.