News from Cochrane

Apologies if it has been posted before. I've heard about it, but haven't seen this official statement from Cochrane about it. It's not dated, but listed on 3.rd place on the front page of Cochrane, so I gather the statement is new?

Cochrane considering the repositioning of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Review Group currently sits within the Brain, Nerves and Mind (BNM) Network. In the future, reviews on this topic might sit with another Cochrane Review Group within the BNM Network, or they might transfer to another Network altogether, such as the Long Term Conditions and Ageing 2 Network.

This is currently under consideration and a decision is anticipated before the end of 2018.

ETA: It's from today
ETA: It's from one month ago (Nov. 2) but don't think there's a separate thread on it yet.

 

In response to concerns raised by members of the Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy) (ME) community, Cochrane has been considering repositioning the editorial oversight of CFS/ME reviews.

I hope the overwhelming amount of research pointing towards ME not being a psychosomatic condition, but a biological disease, also plays a role in this.

 

Or maybe a month ago. Either way it's recent.

https://cmd.cochrane.org/news/google-hangout-ketamine-mood-disorders

 

I saw that - and said to myself "Yup, 2nd november - that's today"
Thanks for clearing that up, @Barry

 

Maybe worth a letter of support for a move to a new group, just to nudge them on their way....

 

This 'announcement' seemed to first appear in a reply to a comment on the Review in October, and when I looked earlier this week I still did not find anywhere else.

Perhaps it was published in this more conspicuous location with the site updates following the decision to reject the redraft of the exercise review announced on Friday.

[Though I could have missed it, as the 2nd of November could reflect a reasonable timescale to follow up on a reply to the comment dated 18th of October.]

 

We could have an interesting juxtaposition emerging:

• Cochrane reclassifying ME/CFS such that it is no longer within the Common Mental Disorders Review Group.
• Larun's existing Cochrane ME/CFS exercise review withdrawn in all but name, which was carried out by members of the Common Mental Disorders Review Group. Their resubmission has been rejected, which the notional intention of them doing it better and resubmitting again.
• So let's assume the decision is made, by end 2018, that ME/CFS will be moved out of the Common Mental Disorders Review Group.
• The resubmission is incredibly unlikely to occur before end of 2018, given the authors will need to go and find some extra special magic wands.
• What would be the point of Cochrane countenancing reincarnating a review for ME/CFS, from within a review group ME is no longer going to belong to? Cochrane will have clearly indicated ME is not a mental health condition, and any reviews by people presuming that, will be recognised as inherently biased from the outset.

 

And provided Cochrane do not do an about turn on this, then the implications for the new NICE guideline will be very significant, as well as for Carol Monaghan's HoC debate if she manages to get it. And given the politically driven moves afoot to slide MUS under the radar of good science, and treat under the mental health umbrella, I think it will have implications for those trying to include ME within that.

 

https://www.evidentlycochrane.net/ohreally12thingshelpyouquestionhealthadvice/

 

And it's not even April Fool's day. Are they taking the......?

 

The first blog:
https://www.evidentlycochrane.net/expert-opinion-not-always-right/

 

There are some great and relevant quotes about "experts",in the following BMJ "Field Guide to Experts"

https://www.bmj.com/content/329/7480/1460.full.pdf+html

 

. Brilliant!

 

https://training.cochrane.org/resource/cochrane-new-conflict-interest-policy-what-you-need-know

Apologies if there is already a thread on this

 

Any tightening of CoI or other policy at Cochrane still needs to be accompanied by the will to enforce that policy if there is to be any confidence in the brand. In fact, a strengthening of policy without enforcement could be seen as rather damaging.

So, in other words, I do hope that Cochrane plan to be vigilant in holding authors / editors to account.

I have no idea how well policies have been enforced in the past but make this as a general statement.