1. Guest, read the 'News in Brief' post for w/c 17th June by clicking this link.
    Dismiss Notice

30th Nov: Cochrane 'have not approved publication of the [Larun] re‐submission' - but old version not withdrawn either.

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS News' started by NelliePledge, Nov 30, 2018.

  1. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    20,822
    Location:
    UK East Midlands
    inox, James, Luther Blissett and 21 others like this.
  2. TiredSam

    TiredSam Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,686
    Likes Received:
    27,807
    Location:
    Germany
    Hopefully they are giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
     
  3. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,035
    Likes Received:
    25,047
    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 The review is also substantially out of date and in need of updating.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
     
    James, wdb, MeSci and 32 others like this.
  4. andypants

    andypants Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    9,406
    Location:
    Norway
    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."
     
    James, Luther Blissett, wdb and 23 others like this.
  5. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    2,413
    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
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2018
    James, Luther Blissett, wdb and 10 others like this.
  6. obeat

    obeat Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    379
    Likes Received:
    2,645
    Step1 bring in independent reviewers.
     
    Luther Blissett, wdb, MeSci and 20 others like this.
  7. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    7,374
    Given that Cochrane have now implicitly accepted there are problems with the current exercise review, should they not be withdrawing it, pending the availability of a corrected and updated version.
     
  8. Inara

    Inara Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,705
    Likes Received:
    10,872
    That's how you read it? Did they really?
     
    DokaGirl and inox like this.
  9. Inara

    Inara Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,705
    Likes Received:
    10,872
    I don't understand why it took so long to have Bob's complaint processed - is that normal? Or what happened that they took that complaint seriously? Did they take it seriously?
     
    inox, Luther Blissett, MeSci and 8 others like this.
  10. andypants

    andypants Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    9,406
    Location:
    Norway
    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.
     
  11. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,035
    Likes Received:
    25,047
    I don't see any sign that they've withdrawn it.
     
  12. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    2,413
    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?
     
  13. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    20,822
    Location:
    UK East Midlands
    It hasn’t been taken down tho.
     
  14. large donner

    large donner Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    7,912
    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.
     
  15. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    7,374
    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.
     
  16. andypants

    andypants Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    9,406
    Location:
    Norway
    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.
     
  17. Michiel Tack

    Michiel Tack Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    6,966
    Location:
    Belgium
    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: Nov 30, 2018
    Luther Blissett, wdb, Stuart and 29 others like this.
  18. Pechius

    Pechius Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    1,038
    Can you really 'update' a sinking ship?
     
  19. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator

    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    18,031
    Location:
    UK
    My question is are Cochrane liable if patients are harmed whilst they know a flawed review is still up with a very small warning.
     
  20. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    7,394
    You can rearrange the deck chairs.
     

Share This Page