Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn

rvallee said:
I guess this is for his mind-body mission in life to place psychiatry as the master discipline of medicine
Click to expand...

But they were all deceived (the many disciplines of medicine) for in secret a ring was forged to rule all the others (psychiatry's mind/body blather)*

The one ring would like to rule all the others by infiltrating and making it's goals the goals of all the others (it has been somewhat effective in neurology to date). Whatever discipline has even a single patient who's diagnosis cannot be pinned down with certainty psychiatry will claim them for it's own.

Psychiatry was a somewhat maligned discipline with a poor performance record. Someone took that quite personally and so here we are. Psychiatry will rule supreme. Muhahahah.

*the mind/body dichotomy/non-dichotomy is a non issue. The brain and body are the same thing and how our body processes data as mind is an as yet mostly undiscovered country and there is little to opine about with any certainty IMO. And this is exactly why they use the concept. It can mean anything they like and change with the weather.
 
Sly Saint said:
"
The secret of Goldacre’s early success
is simple. We love people getting it wrong. Watching people making fools of themselves is always more interesting..."

"Goldacre’s skill is to use all these examples of epic ignorance or failures to draw out important principles of how science actually works, and how statistics should be used".

has he read the paper? (ie PACE)
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what Goldacre has to say, it just seems this is a blindspot of his and we know why...

“There are all kinds of courage," said Dumbledore, smiling. "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/993937-there-are-all-kinds-of-courage-said-dumbledore-smiling-it
 
Esther12 said:
Just looked at Kelland's twitter feed, and saw she was sharing congratulations of Sharpe:

View attachment 4722
Click to expand...

Not even bothering to hide it.

Sometimes it feels like the Royal College of Psychiatry is trolling over this. Because if this is truly the best UK psychiatry has to offer, well, that would explain a lot. Magical thinking elevated by institutions who choose empire-building over gatekeeping.

I wonder what was the inflection point to this descent into mediocrity.
 
Edit: It must be just the 2 new comments added. Not a new version number, and not a new date.

---

This note have been added in the version control/what's new. Not sure if this means changes to the review are done - or if it's just the 2 new comments added in the comments section?


9 November 2018

Feedback has been incorporated

Feedback has been added, along with a response from the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CMD) Review Group
Click to expand...

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/information#whatsNew
 
Last edited:
Comment added Nov 5:
A few questions about where the disease ME/CFS will be placed by Cochrane in the future. If Cochrane moves myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) into the Long term conditions and Aging Network, will it be moved into the Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders review group within this network?

I'm making this assumption, based on the metabolic abnormalities, found in people with ME/CFS, when objective metabolic exercise tests, are carried out, as per "Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test Methodology for Assessing Exertion Intolerance in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" ‐ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30234078?

If, in the alternative, Cochrane decides that ME/CFS is to remain in the Brain, Nerves and Mind (BNM) Network, will it be moved into a separate group of its own? As whilst the disease fits within the BNM Network, it doesn't fit into any of the listed Cochrane Review Groups.
Click to expand...

"The closest fit is probably the Multiple Sclerosis and rare diseases of the CNS? However, given that ME/CFS is thought to be more prevalent that multiple sclerosis and is not rare, it doesn't really fit into this group. Will a new Cochrane Review Group, be made for ME/CFS, that is in line with the published biomedical and physiological findings?"
 
The note on the Cochrane review states "A decision on the status of this review will be made once this resubmission has been through editorial process, which we anticipate will be towards the end of November 2018."

Does anyone have a sense of how long it will take for a decision to be made once they finish the editorial process?
 
A delaying tactic could still do us a lot of harm though.

edit: I think I misunderstood Coyne's tweet. My expectation is that Cochrane will promote and support Larun's work despite her failure to refute the concerns raised. This will then set-back and delay other efforts.
 
Cochrane have posted an update on the review

Addition of new published note 'Cochrane’s editors and the review author team have jointly agreed that there will be a further period up to the end of May 2019, in which time the author team will amend the review to address changes aimed at improving the quality of reporting of the review and ensuring that the conclusions are fully defensible and valid to inform health care decision making. The changes will also address concerns raised in feedback since the Robert Courtney complaint. The amendment will not include a full update, but a decision about this will made subsequently.'
Click to expand...

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/information#history

Isn't Tovey leaving Cochrane in May?
 
Based on what’s happened so far this is blatantly hitting the ball even further into the long grass. May is SIX months from November when it was all supposed to be sorted.

Rather than tinkering about they could have started completely from scratch and done a proper review in that time.

They have zero credibility.
 
I'm guessing they are struggling with red tape specifically -the not withdrawing the review without the author's permission thing?

I like this bit though (my bolding):

... in which time the author team will amend the review to address changes aimed at improving the quality of reporting of the review and ensuring that the conclusions are fully defensible and valid to inform health care decision making
Click to expand...

It's almost (but not quite) an admission that previous review was completely unfit for purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom