Cochrane Review: 'Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome' 2017, Larun et al. - Recent developments, 2018-19

NelliePledge said:
Well it looks like you were too optimistic
Click to expand...

Yes, if nothing has come out I'm now thinking the future may never come (so to speak). Although it was less optimism on my part and more a passing whim to guess. :bored:

Hilariously I just had the thought (if we were all financially better off) that we could start betting pools on this sort of thing and donate the proceedes to a pre-selected ME charity.
 
Patient groups demand sanctions on those who fail to report clinical trial results
20 Aug 2019
A coalition of twelve patient and integrity groups today called on UK parliament to put its weight behind efforts to end impunity in medical research.

In an open letter, the coalition highlighted Parliament’s 2018 recommendation that:

“the HRA [Health Research Authority] introduce a system of sanctions to drive improvements in clinical trials transparency, such as withdrawing favourable ethical opinion or preventing further trials from taking place. The Government should consult specifically on whether to provide the HRA with the statutory power to fine sponsors for non-compliance.”
Click to expand...
Today’s open letter is signed by twelve groups:
Click to expand...
second on the list is Cochrane.

https://www.transparimed.org/single...ose-who-fail-to-report-clinical-trial-results

(hmm does that include Cochrane reviews?)
 
Trish said:
The latest amendment:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/full

17 June 2019

Amended

Addition of new published note 'Cochrane’s Editor in Chief has received the revised version of the review from the author team with changes made in response to the complaint by Robert Courtney. The process has taken longer than hoped; the amended review is being finalised and it will be published during the next 2 months.'
Click to expand...

Going on 2 and a half months, I think it is clear the authors and the editor (who presumably would insist on the changes suggested by her predecessor) do not agree.
 
Snow Leopard said:
Going on 2 and a half months, I think it is clear the authors and the editor (who presumably would insist on the changes suggested by her predecessor) do not agree.
Click to expand...
Hey, no big deal. People are being harmed long-term despite a clear evidence trail from Cochrane editors being aware that the evidence for those recommendations is as biased as it is hollow while population surveys continue to report consistent evidence of harm. In addition of course to the fact that the current disastrous outcome was predicted and well-documented, only to be dismissed without valid reasons.

Is it bad to knowingly make medical recommendations that lack any evidence and lead to harm? Yes, yes it is. Very bad, in fact. It certainly should be very expensive.
 
I am very paranoid about the BPSers. Could they have been waiting for the revised risk of bias rules to be published so they could put out the review and say that the problems of bias levels in the complaints has now been resolved as there is no longer any conflict with Cochrane's rules?
 
Mithriel said:
I am very paranoid about the BPSers. Could they have been waiting for the revised risk of bias rules to be published so they could put out the review and say that the problems of bias levels in the complaints has now been resolved as there is no longer any conflict with Cochrane's rules?
Click to expand...

I don't think that is likely. RoB2 has been in progress for about 3 years.

My understanding is that there are some discussions occurring mid September. Whether there are other reasons for delay I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom