Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn

[MSEsperanza]

Yes but I have access via an institution. When I try it says the page is not available.

Edit: It seems to be a problem for the whole of Cochrane for me.

Has Cochrane just shut down!!?

Interesting. Perhaps the "technical team" at work? (Edit: I was meaning: perhaps an IT problem.) Will you contact them?

Edit: The Exercise therapy review still labeled free access and available without restrictions.

 

[ladycatlover]

I've got the full paper (I think) from this URL:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001027.pub2/full

Unfortunately I don't have the brain power today to read it! Actually most days I don't have the brain power to read it, very occasionally I have a half decent brain day.

 

[MSEsperanza]

I've got the full paper (I think) from this URL:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001027.pub2/full

The link doesn't direct me to the full version, just the abstract and the authors' summary in alleged plain language.

 

[ladycatlover]

The link doesn't lead to the full version, just the abstract and the authors' summary in alleged plain language.

It then goes on to Authors' conclusions, Background, Objectives, Methods, Results, Discussion. It's a very long webpage.

Figures 1 and 2 are about bias.

 

[Trish]

Does this mean that this one has been put into cold storage too? They did say something about all the CFS reviews being reconsidered.

The statement about the withdrawal of the Chinese Medicine CFS Cochrane review includes this:

The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group is currently undertaking a strategic portfolio assessment of all existing and planned reviews and protocols, including those relating to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). During the course of our portfolio assessment, we are aiming to ensure that the most up to date evidence is available in the Cochrane Library to inform decision‐making.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006348.pub3/full

 

[MSEsperanza]

It then goes on to Authors' conclusions, Background, Objectives, Methods, Results, Discussion. It's a very long webpage.

Figures 1 and 2 are about bias.

That's strange. I can't see any figures.

The "authors' conclusions, Background, Objectives, Methods, Results, Discussion" for me all have a lock symbol.

I then have diverse options to get to unlock the locked parts or the locked full article.

When I try the pay-walled options, I receive the notification:

"We do not offer Rental or Cloud article purchases on outdated browsers. For these purchase options, please use a modern browser."

Boldness! I have the latest firefox version installed.

Only left option for me is to purchase the PDF for $ 38. I won't try that though.

Which browser do you use?

 

[Andy]

Boldness! I have the latest firefox version installed.

Works for me on Firefox, I'm using version 62.0.3
Also just fired up Chrome (probably not the latest version though) and it worked for me on that browser as well.

 

[Wonko]

I can see loads of stuff, including a couple of bar charts, using chrome. I cannot see any lock symbols.

(on a quick scroll through.)

 

[ladycatlover]

Which browser do you use?

Chrome. I wonder if they only allow computers in UK to access the full paper for free? Though they do offer it in Spanish as well apparently.

I've tried to copy Figure 1.

Figure 2

So at least some of the stuff about bias is here for people to see.

 

[Sly Saint]

this is the full paper (CBT review for CFS):

 

[ladycatlover]

I can see loads of stuff, including a couple of bar charts, using chrome. I cannot see any lock symbols.

(on a quick scroll through.)

If you open those charts in the Figure Viewer you get to see all the Graphs too.

 

[MSEsperanza]

Chrome. I wonder if they only allow computers in UK to access the full paper for free?

Indeed I'm outside the UK (physically at least). I wonder where Jonathan Edwards and strategist are? (Apparently both could not access the full version either)

I've tried to copy Figure 1.
So at least some of the stuff about bias is here for people to see.

Thank you!

 

[mango]

Short news article today in Dagens Medicin, Sweden

https://www.dagensmedicin.se/artiklar/2018/10/22/cochrane-drar-tillbaka-me-oversikt/

Google translate, English
https://translate.google.se/transla...ochrane-drar-tillbaka-me-oversikt/&edit-text=

 

[Hoopoe]

The Ridsdale 2001 article is claimed to be blinded according to this table, but outcomes are fatigue scores. They must mean some other kind of blinding.

Link to Ridsdale et al 2001 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11271868

 

[Kalliope]

Short news article today in Dagens Medicin, Sweden

https://www.dagensmedicin.se/artiklar/2018/10/22/cochrane-drar-tillbaka-me-oversikt/

Google translate, English
https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.dagensmedicin.se/artiklar/2018/10/22/cochrane-drar-tillbaka-me-oversikt/&edit-text=

They're going for the Reuters' version and links to a previous article from 2015 about the Swedish patient organisation "trying to stop research" by criticising a planned trial on CBT as treatment for ME.

 

[Barry]

View attachment 4482
The Ridsdale 2001 article is claimed to be blinded according to this table, but outcomes are fatigue scores. They must mean some other kind of blinding.

Link to Ridsdale et al 2001 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11271868

Doesn't blinding apply to the interventions rather than the measures? Depends what sort of interventions there were, though psych ones would presumably be extremely difficult to blind.

 

[obeat]

There are fewer green dots overall , so studies are not as robust as author groups claim. Did Blakemore bother to look at review before opining.?

 

[Lucibee]

Does anyone have an copy of the original Cochrane review (pre-2017)? It looks like Larun changed some of the data in the 2017 version (or it might be she was losing track in the comments more than I am!), but I can't tell what.

(Bob refers to some non-significant data that I can't now find anywhere)

ETA: Found it here: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/information#whatsNew

ETA2: No differences.

 

[Hoopoe]

Doesn't blinding apply to the interventions rather than the measures? Depends what sort of interventions there were, though psych ones would presumably be extremely difficult to blind.

It's a review of CBT for CFS. The effect on nonblinding is that of introducing bias into self reported measures. So by saying they used subjective measures, I'm implying that bias was affecting the results.

Or maybe I'm just brain fogged and confused due to having a flare up of gut symptoms.

 

[ladycatlover]

There are fewer green dots overall , so studies are not as robust as author groups claim. Did Blakemore bother to look at review before opining.?

The Figures (1 and 2) I put up are for the Cochrane CBT Review. Blakemore was commenting on the GE Review being temporarily removed. I've not seen similar Figures for the GE Review. I used to be able to keep up better with this kind of stuff, but just can't do it properly any more.