-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Cochrane Review: 'Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome' 2017, Larun et al. - Recent developments, 2018-19
As you know I’m somewhat cynical 
My bet is whatever the next announcement or step in this is it is now definitely planned for publication on the website on 31 October
My bet is whatever the next announcement or step in this is it is now definitely planned for publication on the website on 31 October
ladycatlover
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Ah yes, Halloween, such a great date to publish things, or leave things. What a shame it doesn't coincide with a full moon as well!
Barry
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Ah, that will be it. They've prorogued their review process.As you know I’m somewhat cynical
My bet is whatever the next announcement or step in this is it is now definitely planned for publication on the website on 31 October
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Not a good start, Karla.
MSEsperanza
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
There seem to be two documents published on eInnsyn which we haven't seen yet (documents from 24.06.2019, published 08.08.2019)
edited to add: Google translate of the title: "Complaint - Denial of access to document 12 and 13 in case 17/10566"
So doesn't seem to be correspondence between Cochrane and the reviewers' team.
Documents 12 & 13 were already published and posted on this thread.
https://einnsyn.no/saksmappe?id=http://data.einnsyn.no/noark4/Saksmappe--983744516--11291--2019
@Kalliope
edited to add: Google translate of the title: "Complaint - Denial of access to document 12 and 13 in case 17/10566"
So doesn't seem to be correspondence between Cochrane and the reviewers' team.
Documents 12 & 13 were already published and posted on this thread.
https://einnsyn.no/saksmappe?id=http://data.einnsyn.no/noark4/Saksmappe--983744516--11291--2019
@Kalliope
Last edited:
Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Thanks for keeping an eye on that. Please let us know if you get anything new.
Kalliope
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Thanks. I've sent a FOI-request for the documents. Doubt they will contain anything of interest, but just to be sure.
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I don't understand, are they retrospectively trying to block access to those two documents?
MSEsperanza
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Thank you, @Kalliope
I have no idea. Maybe someone requested access to the e-mails attachments and that's what was denied. (I didn't check which e-mails had attachments though).
But I'm sure @Kalliope will have an answer soon.
Another question @Kalliope: Do you know whether it's also possible to request an update on the reporting of any additional documents on the case? (The intervals between the dates when the e-mails were sent and the dates when they were reported to eInnsyn seem rather arbitrary to me.)
Last edited:
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
The issue is that the (former) editor was demanding changes or a voluntary retraction by the authors (to avoid loss of face for both the journal and the authors), yet the authors were unwilling to do either, presumably because they knew the editor was retiring and they may get a different decision by the new editor. Presumably the new editor has persisted with the former editor's demands, leading to a stalemate. The only resolution that I see is to demand the changes or the journal will retract the article.
Last edited:
Wonko
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I really don't get how these people think.
They were told to alter it or it would be retracted.
They didn't.
So there is no reason not to retract it, and every reason to do so.
It's really really simple and I am surprised that neither the authors or cochrane gets it.
Not retracting it makes cochrane look weak, bad and liars. As if they were bluffing, for some unknown reason.
Not retracting it when clear conditions were set, and these haven't been met, is dishonest.
With the authors, as with any immature being, once a pronouncement is made it must be followed through on, if all respect, and hence control, isn't to be lost.
They were told to alter it or it would be retracted.
They didn't.
So there is no reason not to retract it, and every reason to do so.
It's really really simple and I am surprised that neither the authors or cochrane gets it.
Not retracting it makes cochrane look weak, bad and liars. As if they were bluffing, for some unknown reason.
Not retracting it when clear conditions were set, and these haven't been met, is dishonest.
With the authors, as with any immature being, once a pronouncement is made it must be followed through on, if all respect, and hence control, isn't to be lost.
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
They're afraid of the big loss of face, namely they'd have to admit they had an article up for years that didn't meet their quality standards. They also no doubt have certain UK and Dutch psychiatrists in their ears about how terrible it would be to give ammunition to the skeptical patient community (those of us who actually demand the same quality of evidence as would be required for a pharmacological treatment).
Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
To me, those copies of correspondence indicated that Tovey wasn't asking for much of a change, and I didn't see it as indicating Cochrane had really understood all the problems with the research used to promoted exercise therapy for CFS. I would still expect any updated review from Larun to be bad so am not too concerned by any delay.
Kalliope
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Good question. I have no idea, though..
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
No news is good news?
Jonathan Edwards
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I am not sure it matters any more. All the people to whom the review is relevant are now well aware that a lot of people think it is incompetent. They may or may not agree but that is another issue.
What matters in the UK is NICE and I suspect other countries that might be looking over their shoulder are more likely to follow NICE than Cochrane. I think NICE will make its own mind up, whatever happens to this review.
What matters in the UK is NICE and I suspect other countries that might be looking over their shoulder are more likely to follow NICE than Cochrane. I think NICE will make its own mind up, whatever happens to this review.
Surely enough of the discussion is out in the open that whatever happens anyone claiming this review is authoritative is going to look foolish even if it isn’t retracted
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Nope. The average medical practitioner (for example, the GP I saw who looked up CFS on Wikipedia) does not look very deep at the evidence and still expects the Cochrane brand to do the thinking for them.