1. Guest, clicking here will take you to the 'News in Brief' post for w/c 2nd Dec.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS News' started by Trish, Oct 17, 2018.

  1. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,286
    Likes Received:
    28,352
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    three years is ridiculous
     
  2. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,663
    Likes Received:
    31,060
    Location:
    UK
  3. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,146
    Likes Received:
    33,678
    The one thing you can be sure of, is that it has naff all to do with good science. Far more to do with mucky political networking is my thinking.
    The encouragement I take is that despite the machiavellian coercion that must inevitably be in full swing (I mean, really, what are the odds that that is not happening!), Cochrane have made this quite forceful statement. I would like to think it might be signalling - and intended to be seen as signalling, given its timing - a new broom sweeping clean. I'll allow myself to daydream for a while.
     
  4. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    22,054
    Location:
    Canada
    They've had 2 years to respond to undeniable flaws that discredit the entire review. Meanwhile a flawed review continues to harm patients around the world, something that will be deserving of serious lawsuits in the future as they have shown to be aware of the issues for a long time and have elected to maintain their recommendations.

    Cochrane are absolutely not taking seriously the impact having flawed medical guidelines has on patients suffering from a highly disabling disease. The concerns and reputation of a review's authors are being held above the patients' well-being. This is reckless and irresponsible.
     
    Wonko, shak8, MEMarge and 16 others like this.
  5. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator

    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    20,875
    Location:
    UK
    Yet it is still there and the warning is small. I wonder what the legal position is in that there comment suggests they know the work isn't up to standard but they are keeping the work published anyway. If someone were to rely on the review I wonder if they could be held liable for any issues or even the money spent on GET when the outcomes are less certain than they claim. However, I suspect since no one has a contract with Cochrane that there cannot be a case for liability?
     
    MEMarge, andypants, Skycloud and 10 others like this.
  6. Michiel Tack

    Michiel Tack Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    12,387
    Location:
    Belgium
    I thought the previous note was more critical of Larun et al. (not approved publication of the re‐submission. The review is also substantially out of date and in need of updating) than this one. An amendment by the authors will not do, if the conclusions are still based on subjective outcomes only.

    Interesting choice of wording also: it seems that Cochrane is more interested in making a flawed review "defensible", rather than writing a good review. I get the impression that the problem for them is criticism of their brand, rather than a flawed review causing harm to patients.
     
    Wonko, MEMarge, andypants and 14 others like this.
  7. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes Received:
    27,279
    'How much can we let Larun get away with without them completely embarrassing us?!'
     
    WillowJ, MEMarge, andypants and 6 others like this.
  8. Robert 1973

    Robert 1973 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    5,781
    Location:
    UK
    I don’t think there needs to be a contract. As I understand, the legal requirement is for there to be a duty of care, for that duty to have been breached, and for that breach to have caused injury or loss.

    If someone could prove that they had suffered injury or loss as direct consequence of Cochrane’s failure to take adequate measures in response to known problems with the review, then I think they could sue for negligence. The difficulty would be in proving that the injury or loss was caused by Cochrane’s actions (or inaction).

    Disclaimer: I have no legal expertise.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2019
  9. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,850
    Likes Received:
    59,859
    I think that is right. Cochrane produce reviews knowing that they will be used for guidelines. They have given themselves a duty of care. If it could be shown that NICE guidelines were critically influenced by a Cochrane review that was known to be defective then I think there would be a legal case against Cochrane. It would probably never get anywhere but there would be a legal case. The difficult bit would be proving that NICE had been critically influenced by Cochrane I think.
     
    sb4, MEMarge, andypants and 11 others like this.
  10. ScottTriGuy

    ScottTriGuy Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    4,935
    Location:
    Toronto
    Nailed it.
     
    WillowJ, Snowdrop, MEMarge and 5 others like this.
  11. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    8,076
    Likes Received:
    58,894
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
     
    Woolie, Barry, JaneL and 9 others like this.
  12. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    18,534
    Likes Received:
    95,987
    Location:
    UK
    More information from Cochrane:
    https://www.cochrane.org/news/appointment-new-editor-chief-cochrane-library
    more at link.
     
    Barry, JaneL, Hutan and 10 others like this.
  13. John Mac

    John Mac Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    2,363
    Alarm bells ringing already, if the GET review isn't withdrawn by the end of May it may never be.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
    sb4, Barry, Sean and 12 others like this.
  14. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,253
    Likes Received:
    7,393
    Location:
    Australia
    Not necessarily, she has involved in drug trials and systematic reviews for a wide range of conditions.

    For her reviews of CBT, the studies have been rated as low/very low quality. For "Psychosocial interventions for the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder", the conclusion was "Cognitive-behavioural therapy, group psychoeducation and possibly family therapy may be beneficial as adjuncts to pharmacological maintenance treatments."
     
    GodGenghis, Woolie, Barry and 15 others like this.
  15. strategist

    strategist Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    20,794
    Did she say anything about CBT for schizophrenia? If she can see the problems in that area, she should also see them in ME/CFS.
     
    Liessa, Esther12, JaneL and 7 others like this.
  16. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,663
    Likes Received:
    31,060
    Location:
    UK
  17. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    911
    Likes Received:
    9,116
    It is the phrase evidence-based health care that always makes my heart sink, as usually in relation to ME it is code for bad and misleading evidence. Let's hope Dr Soares-Weiser has a better understanding of reliable evidence than her predecessor. Given her previous role in Cochrane she can not but be aware of the controversy around their reviews in relation to ME/CFS, so I guess we will find out fairly soon what her stand on is in relation to the 'evidence' supporting the use of GET/CBT and as to which group should host ME.

    [added - There is the risk that given she is an internal appointment she will pursue Tovey's policy of putting protection of the brand and avoiding controversy above scientific objectivity, but let's hope not.]
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
    Liessa, Woolie, WillowJ and 12 others like this.
  18. TiredSam

    TiredSam Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,147
    Likes Received:
    34,558
    Location:
    Germany
    Apart from the above, this also rang my alarm bell:

    I can't pretend I know exactly what it means, but I know it makes me feel uneasy.
     
    Woolie, sb4, Barry and 15 others like this.
  19. large donner

    large donner Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    8,578
    As she is a psychiatrist there's a risk that she was an "external appointment", especially with Toveys sudden departure announcement.
     
    Barry and Sean like this.
  20. Skycloud

    Skycloud Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    13,528
    Location:
    UK
    She was Deputy Editor in Chief of the Cochrane Library before this appointment, so it's more a promotion.
     
    Barry, ScottTriGuy, Sean and 8 others like this.

Share This Page