30th Nov: Cochrane 'have not approved publication of the [Larun] re‐submission' - but old version not withdrawn either.

obeat said:
Did Mark Vink send his reanalysis to Cochrane, or is this another paper that makes their review out of date?
Click to expand...
Sorry don't know if Vink sent his paper to Cochrane. If I remember his paper correctly it was an analysis of the current Cochrane review highlighting the problems with it, rather than bringing in more recent literature literature. Have I understood your question properly? My brain isn't at all good today.
 
https://healthycontrolblog.wordpres...CtPVvDWlKd1Ar11w3nzsMp9_V6FtjB5BUj5isZuRCtHhU

Very good from Caroline Struthers

My complaint to the Cochrane Governing Board about the Cochrane review of Exercise for chronic fatigue syndrome
Caroline Struthers Uncategorized November 29, 2018 5 Minutes


After a lot of to-ing and fro-ing and fruitless correspondence with the Cochrane Editorial Unit by me and many others over years, I was asked yesterday to submit a summary of my complaint about this review to the Governing Board of Cochrane. This is it.
 
We can only hope that Cochrane are taking this approach of small steps in good faith. It is very British for change to happen in small increments rather than Big Bang. Given the pressures no doubt being applied by the BPS mafia going in small steps and giving the authors opportunity to correct means Cochrane can push back saying you should have taken full advantage of those opportunities. Hopefully blunting the BPS mafia onslaught. If the mafia claim withdrawal is detrimental to the authors reputations well they were the ones jumping the gun before they’d even resubmitted by publicising it through Reuter’s.

If this is being done genuinely by Cochrane possibly the best outcome Larun & co can hope for is to agree the review is “out of date” and accept withdrawal and a fresh review by a new team. This could be announced in a relatively low key way and may not draw much press interest. For their reputations resisting withdrawal and risking unilateral withdrawal could be seriously shooting themselves in the foot. A managed retreat or a last ditch defense.
 
NelliePledge said:
We can only hope that Cochrane are taking this approach of small steps in good faith. It is very British for change to happen in small increments rather than Big Bang.
Click to expand...
This strategy can be far more effective when faced with very potent opposition. The point is that with each small advance, you dig in and consolidate and hold that ground. One all or nothing offensive is very high risk, and is the sort of thing the BPS opposition are very adroit at counteracting. I think this approach might be giving them some sleepless nights.
 
Last edited:
Feedback submitted from Mark Vink
The studies in the review do not provide any evidence that graded exercise therapy is safe, on the other hand, patient evidence and the literature show that it is not safe.

Cochrane replies:
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. Your feedback will be considered as part of this process so that it can inform future versions of the review. These discussions will be concluded as soon as possible.



 
Last edited:
@Mark Vink comment and reply as linked in the tweet above.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cds....pub7/detailed-comment/en?messageId=160462657

Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome

Lillebeth Larun, Kjetil G Brurberg, Jan Odgaard‐Jensen, Jonathan R Price | 25 April 2017
Back to article
Feedback submitted, 2 December 2018
Note: This comment may relate to a previous version of this Review.

Recently I have published a reanalysis of this Cochrane review. Unfortunately there are many problems with the review and the trials in it. For example, P‐Hacking, extensive endpoint changes, overlap in entry/recovery criteria, selecting patients who don't have the disease, ignoring null effects, relying on subjective outcomes in unblinded trials and ignoring the absence of objective improvement. The reanalyses which looked at the objective outcomes showed that graded exercise therapy is not an effective treatment for ME/CFS. The studies in the review do not provide any evidence that graded exercise therapy is safe, on the other hand, patient evidence and the literature show that it is not safe.

The open access reanalysis can be read here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2055102918805187

Reply
Many thanks for your feedback on this review. Cochrane recognises the importance of the 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. Your feedback will be considered as part of this process so that it can inform future versions of the review. These discussions will be concluded as soon as possible.

Contributors
Feedback submitted by: Mark Vink

Response: Jessica Hendon (Managing Editor of the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Review Group)

Declarations of interest:
No conflict of interest declared.
Click to expand...
 
NelliePledge said:
If this is being done genuinely by Cochrane possibly the best outcome Larun & co can hope for is to agree the review is “out of date” and accept withdrawal and a fresh review by a new team. This could be announced in a relatively low key way and may not draw much press interest. For their reputations resisting withdrawal and risking unilateral withdrawal could be seriously shooting themselves in the foot. A managed retreat or a last ditch defense.
Click to expand...

This is my hope and assumption of what is going on. we'll see soon!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom