It’s good that they haven’t just rolled over and accepted whatever Larun et al have resubmitted. Sounds like they might be stretching it to allow them another chance tho. How do others read the statement?
-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
30th Nov: Cochrane 'have not approved publication of the [Larun] re‐submission' - but old version not withdrawn either.
- Thread starter NelliePledge
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2018 cochrane review larun
TiredSam
Committee Member
Hopefully they are giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Looks like the review was updated today:
Date
Event
Description
30 November 2018
Amended
Addition of new published note 'The author team has re‐submitted a revised version of this review following the complaint by Robert Courtney. The Editor in Chief and colleagues recognise that the author team has sought to address the criticisms made by Mr Courtney but judge that further work is needed to ensure that the review meets the quality standards required, and as a result have not approved publication of the re‐submission. The review is also substantially out of date and in need of updating.
Cochrane recognises the importance of this review and is committed to providing a high quality review that reflects the best current evidence to inform decisions.
The Editor in Chief is currently holding discussions with colleagues and the author team to determine a series of steps that will lead to a full update of this review. These discussions will be concluded as soon as possible'.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/information#history
Date
Event
Description
30 November 2018
Amended
Addition of new published note 'The author team has re‐submitted a revised version of this review following the complaint by Robert Courtney. The Editor in Chief and colleagues recognise that the author team has sought to address the criticisms made by Mr Courtney but judge that further work is needed to ensure that the review meets the quality standards required, and as a result have not approved publication of the re‐submission. The review is also substantially out of date and in need of updating.
Cochrane recognises the importance of this review and is committed to providing a high quality review that reflects the best current evidence to inform decisions.
The Editor in Chief is currently holding discussions with colleagues and the author team to determine a series of steps that will lead to a full update of this review. These discussions will be concluded as soon as possible'.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/information#history
andypants
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I consider this a win! They thought they could just polish it up a bit and everything would be fine, but I guess not this time 
That said... an update could potentially mean anything. I guess we'll know more when they have determined "a series of steps that will lead to a full update of this review."
That said... an update could potentially mean anything. I guess we'll know more when they have determined "a series of steps that will lead to a full update of this review."
They've withdrawn it but the wording makes it sound like there were a few issues, and well, its out of date now anyway so let's just move along.
Why on earth would they talk to the author team when theh have demonstrated that they don't have the ability to carry out a review to the required standard.
Edit to clarify :withdrawn is not stated - it was my interpretation
.
Why on earth would they talk to the author team when theh have demonstrated that they don't have the ability to carry out a review to the required standard.
Edit to clarify :withdrawn is not stated - it was my interpretation
Last edited:
Inara
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
That's how you read it? Did they really?
andypants
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
They should, but from what I've learned so far it's something they very rarely do. Probably easier, and less trouble, to just replace/update it and never actually officially retract it. Saves face all around I suspect.
Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I don't see any sign that they've withdrawn it.
Withdrawn might be the wrong word but it sounds to me like it's not going to go back up.
They have said they did not approve publication of the resubmission.
So is the net effect of that a withdrawal?
It hasn’t been taken down tho.
large donner
Guest
It seems a bit bizarre how Cochrane are going about this.
If they are saying CBT and GET have no proven efficacy and are potentially even harmful so we want a review that reflects that, why would they keep giving Larun a chance to come back and do the review properly?
Is that what they are trying to do? Who knows? If they are declaring Laruns re submission doesn't adequately address the complaints by Robert Courtney after being given ample opportunity to do so why give her even more opportunities.
Why not just do another independent review.
Of course a fantastic outcome for us would be that Larun had to eat humble pie do the review properly, declare CBT and GET to be fraudulent and then put her name to it.
How many chances do you have to give someone to be independent and scientific about something? Do they just keep going if she fails, issuing statements saying she has until the end of December to resubmit adequately then fails, then again in January, then fails then February and so on. What if she proves incapable of understanding the problems?
Surely by virtue of the fact she has been given, firstly, until today and now another extension to address the issues Cochrane are stating they have people who have reviewed the whole situation thereby stating they effectively have independently reviewed outside of her submissions in order to evaluate her submissions?
No idea which way this will pan out.
If they are saying CBT and GET have no proven efficacy and are potentially even harmful so we want a review that reflects that, why would they keep giving Larun a chance to come back and do the review properly?
Is that what they are trying to do? Who knows? If they are declaring Laruns re submission doesn't adequately address the complaints by Robert Courtney after being given ample opportunity to do so why give her even more opportunities.
Why not just do another independent review.
Of course a fantastic outcome for us would be that Larun had to eat humble pie do the review properly, declare CBT and GET to be fraudulent and then put her name to it.
How many chances do you have to give someone to be independent and scientific about something? Do they just keep going if she fails, issuing statements saying she has until the end of December to resubmit adequately then fails, then again in January, then fails then February and so on. What if she proves incapable of understanding the problems?
Surely by virtue of the fact she has been given, firstly, until today and now another extension to address the issues Cochrane are stating they have people who have reviewed the whole situation thereby stating they effectively have independently reviewed outside of her submissions in order to evaluate her submissions?
No idea which way this will pan out.
Peter T
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Unfortunately at present this only relates to the Exercise/GET review and not the CBT one.
However presumably if Cochrane accept there is no scientifically valid evidence supporting GET, by implication they must also accept there is no such evidence supporting CBT as the same methodological problems apply to both sets of studies.
At present the available evidence that GET is potentially harmful is much stronger than the evidence against CBT, so it is better to focus on exercise first.
andypants
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
They are not saying that, at least not yet. They are only saying that there are quality issues with the review, which would mean we can’t trust the conclusions of the current review but not necessarily that they are wrong. Which is why an update and a better review are needed.
A better review should show that there’s no efficacy, but in Cochrane’s view we won’t know that until the review is done and approved.
ME/CFS Skeptic
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Lol. So let me see if I've got this right.
1) Larun et al. publish a flawed review.
2) Courtney and Kindlon point out their mistakes, but Larun et al. simply ignore them.
3) Instead of retracting the review, Cochrane gives Larun et al. the chance of a resubmission. They mess it up.
4) And now Cochrane is talking to the authors on how to update the review...
Who gets four chances to do something right? Isn't supposed to be three strikes and you're out? This is getting more and more ridiculous.
Last edited:
Can you really 'update' a sinking ship?
My question is are Cochrane liable if patients are harmed whilst they know a flawed review is still up with a very small warning.
You can rearrange the deck chairs.