News from Cochrane

Kalliope

Kalliope

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Apologies if it has been posted before. I've heard about it, but haven't seen this official statement from Cochrane about it. It's not dated, but listed on 3.rd place on the front page of Cochrane, so I gather the statement is new?

Cochrane considering the repositioning of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Review Group currently sits within the Brain, Nerves and Mind (BNM) Network. In the future, reviews on this topic might sit with another Cochrane Review Group within the BNM Network, or they might transfer to another Network altogether, such as the Long Term Conditions and Ageing 2 Network.

This is currently under consideration and a decision is anticipated before the end of 2018.

ETA: It's from today
ETA: It's from one month ago (Nov. 2) but don't think there's a separate thread on it yet.
 
Last edited:
In response to concerns raised by members of the Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy) (ME) community, Cochrane has been considering repositioning the editorial oversight of CFS/ME reviews.

I hope the overwhelming amount of research pointing towards ME not being a psychosomatic condition, but a biological disease, also plays a role in this.
 
This 'announcement' seemed to first appear in a reply to a comment on the Review in October, and when I looked earlier this week I still did not find anywhere else.

Perhaps it was published in this more conspicuous location with the site updates following the decision to reject the redraft of the exercise review announced on Friday.

[Though I could have missed it, as the 2nd of November could reflect a reasonable timescale to follow up on a reply to the comment dated 18th of October.]
 
We could have an interesting juxtaposition emerging:
  • Cochrane reclassifying ME/CFS such that it is no longer within the Common Mental Disorders Review Group.
  • Larun's existing Cochrane ME/CFS exercise review withdrawn in all but name, which was carried out by members of the Common Mental Disorders Review Group. Their resubmission has been rejected, which the notional intention of them doing it better and resubmitting again.
  • So let's assume the decision is made, by end 2018, that ME/CFS will be moved out of the Common Mental Disorders Review Group.
  • The resubmission is incredibly unlikely to occur before end of 2018, given the authors will need to go and find some extra special magic wands.
  • What would be the point of Cochrane countenancing reincarnating a review for ME/CFS, from within a review group ME is no longer going to belong to? Cochrane will have clearly indicated ME is not a mental health condition, and any reviews by people presuming that, will be recognised as inherently biased from the outset.
 
Barry said:
We could have an interesting juxtaposition emerging:
  • Cochrane reclassifying ME/CFS such that it is no longer within the Common Mental Disorders Review Group.
  • Larun's existing Cochrane ME/CFS exercise review withdrawn in all but name, which was carried out by members of the Common Mental Disorders Review Group. Their resubmission has been rejected, which the notional intention of them doing it better and resubmitting again.
  • So let's assume the decision is made, by end 2018, that ME/CFS will be moved out of the Common Mental Disorders Review Group.
  • The resubmission is incredibly unlikely to occur before end of 2018, given the authors will need to go and find some extra special magic wands.
  • What would be the point of Cochrane countenancing reincarnating a review for ME/CFS, from within a review group ME is no longer going to belong to? Cochrane will have clearly indicated ME is not a mental health condition, and any reviews by people presuming that, will be recognised as inherently biased from the outset.
Click to expand...
Yes @Barry ive been speculating on the other thread https://www.s4me.info/threads/30th-nov-cochrane-have-not-approved-publication-of-the-larun-re‐submission-but-old-version-not-withdrawn-either.6990/page-3#post-126604 that Larun & co making a managed retreat might be the least worst option for them and as well as the review being “out of date” the move to another group would provide a further neutral cover story for a statement by Cochrane that would have limited reputational impact for the authors
 
NelliePledge said:
Yes @Barry ive been speculating on the other thread https://www.s4me.info/threads/30th-nov-cochrane-have-not-approved-publication-of-the-larun-re‐submission-but-old-version-not-withdrawn-either.6990/page-3#post-126604 that Larun & co making a managed retreat might be the least worst option for them and as well as the review being “out of date” the move to another group would provide a further neutral cover story for a statement by Cochrane that would have limited reputational impact for the authors
Click to expand...
And provided Cochrane do not do an about turn on this, then the implications for the new NICE guideline will be very significant, as well as for Carol Monaghan's HoC debate if she manages to get it. And given the politically driven moves afoot to slide MUS under the radar of good science, and treat under the mental health umbrella, I think it will have implications for those trying to include ME within that.
 
Last edited:
This January, we’re launching a new special series of blogs on Evidently Cochrane: “Oh, really?” 12 things to help you question health advice. Each blog will highlight something important to consider when you’re faced with health claims. You can find all of the blogs here and on Twitter using the hashtag #OhReally.
Click to expand...

How can we make sense of what we’re told about our health?
Being able to question what we read and hear about medicines and health, could equip us to make well-informed health decisions. To help us, a team of researchers known as the Informed Health Choices project team have developed a list of ‘Key Concepts’. Each ‘Key Concept’ is something which is important for people to consider when faced with a claim about a treatment. The team continually revise this list and currently there are 44 Key Concepts to help people to:

  • Recognise when a claim about the effects of treatments has an untrustworthy basis. For example when it is based on faulty logic or may be too good to be true.
  • Recognise when evidence from comparisons of treatments is trustworthy and when it is not, to avoid being misled about the benefits and harms of treatments.
  • Make well-informed choices about treatments. This includes making judgements about the relevance and importance of the evidence to you and how sure you can be about the treatment effects.
Click to expand...
https://www.evidentlycochrane.net/ohreally12thingshelpyouquestionhealthadvice/
 
  • Recognise when a claim about the effects of treatments has an untrustworthy basis. For example when it is based on faulty logic or may be too good to be true.
  • Recognise when evidence from comparisons of treatments is trustworthy and when it is not, to avoid being misled about the benefits and harms of treatments.
  • Make well-informed choices about treatments. This includes making judgements about the relevance and importance of the evidence to you and how sure you can be about the treatment effects.
Click to expand...
upload_2020-3-18_10-57-26.jpeg
 
Any tightening of CoI or other policy at Cochrane still needs to be accompanied by the will to enforce that policy if there is to be any confidence in the brand. In fact, a strengthening of policy without enforcement could be seen as rather damaging.

So, in other words, I do hope that Cochrane plan to be vigilant in holding authors / editors to account.

I have no idea how well policies have been enforced in the past but make this as a general statement.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom