Effects of therapeutic interventions on long COVID: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, 2025, Chang Tan et al

[dave30th]

well, actually, the journal has now posted a formal reply from the authors to my letter. They agree that the language used was too strong and could be open to misinterpretation, although it's noteworthy that they didn't change those phrases in the corrigendum, which they could have done. Still, I assume they will perhaps be slightly more careful in future in characterizing their findings. And they're indicated on the main article page under the heading "Linked Articles," which indicates 2. Click on that and you see my letter and the authors' response.

 

[SNT Gatchaman]

We highly acknowledge your concerns regarding the generally high risk of bias in many of the included studies and the low certainty of evidence according to the GRADE framework. In fact, during the design and execution of our study, we were fully aware of the methodological challenges commonly faced by early-stage research in this field.

we must acknowledge that certain expressions used in our writing, such as “high-certainty evidence” and “should be prioritized,” may have come across as overly assertive and could potentially lead to misinterpretation by readers. It would indeed have been more appropriate to phrase these as “evidence of moderate certainty” or “may be considered a preferred option.” We deeply appreciate your valuable feedback regarding these less precise formulations. Your comments contribute significantly to the rigor of academic discourse.

Looking forward to this being posted by Drs Carson and Glasziou (+ here) on social media.

 

[dave30th]

Looking forward to this being posted by Drs Carson and Glasziou (+ here) on social media.

Oh, yes, I'm sure that's happening soon!!! I mean, I'm not thrilled with their substitutions for the phrasing they acknowledge was unwarranted, but at least they're somewhat toned down and a bit equivocal. I still think "preposterous" is more accurate, but I'm willing to debate the point.

 

[MSEsperanza]

"we must acknowledge that certain expressions used in our writing, such as 'high-certainty evidence' and 'should be prioritized,' may have come across as overly assertive and could potentially lead to misinterpretation by readers. It would indeed have been more appropriate to phrase these as 'evidence of moderate certainty' or 'may be considered a preferred option."

I'm impressed how they are able to word their acknowledgement and seem to be genuine but at the same time can't acknowledge that what they wrote was not badly worded but wrong. I mean, how can you misunderstand the phrases 'high-certainty evidence' or 'should be prioritized' as not assertive -- and isn't any assertion that uses these words when in fact there's only low-grade evidence (and they admit they knew that) just factually incorrect = wrong?

I think this isn't a matter of potential misunderstanding of being too assertive, but just actually being too assertive, saying so and claiming 'high certainty evidence' where there is none. So an error and not a misunderstanding.

Apologies for being repetive, but if people want to acknowlege an error, why is it so diffult to spell that out?

 

[Amw66]

"we must acknowledge that certain expressions used in our writing, such as 'high-certainty evidence' and 'should be prioritized,' may have come across as overly assertive and could potentially lead to misinterpretation by readers. It would indeed have been more appropriate to phrase these as 'evidence of moderate certainty' or 'may be considered a preferred option."

I'm impressed how they are able to word their acknowledgement and seem to be genuine but at the same time can't acknowledge that what they wrote was not badly worded but wrong. I mean, how can you misunderstand the phrases 'high-certainty evidence' or 'should be prioritized' as not assertive -- and isn't any assertion that uses these words when in fact there's only low-grade evidence (and they admit they knew that) just factually incorrect = wrong?

I think this isn't a matter of potential misunderstanding of being too assertive, but just actually being too assertive, saying so and claiming 'high certainty evidence' where there is none. So an error and not a misunderstanding.

Apologies for being repetive, but if people want to acknowlege an error, why is it so diffult to spell that out?

Ego

 

[Peter T]

I think this isn't a matter of potential misunderstanding of being too assertive, but just actually being too assertive, saying so and claiming 'high certainty evidence' where there is none. So an error and not a misunderstanding.

Apologies for being repetive, but if people want to acknowlege an error, why is it so diffult to spell that out?

Presumably this indicates they still have high certainty that their conclusion is correct, and are only acknowledging that they expressed this belief more strongly than the evidence allowed. This the steering the ship to the desired destination all over again, there is no admission that the destination is possible wrong, just discussion of what might be the best chart to use.