Withdrawal from publication of 'Traditional Chinese medicinal herbs for the treatment of idiopathic chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome'

MeSci

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Paper: Traditional Chinese medicinal herbs for the treatment of idiopathic chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome

Authors: Denise Adams, Taixiang Wu, Xunzhe Yang, Shusheng Tai, Sunita Vohra

Date: October 15, 2018

URL: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006348.pub3/full

Reason for withdrawal from publication
--------------------------------------

Supporting better health for those receiving care is central to Cochrane's mission to promote evidence‐informed health decision‐making by producing high quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence.

The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group is currently undertaking a strategic portfolio assessment of all existing and planned reviews and protocols, including those relating to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS).

During the course of our portfolio assessment, we are aiming to ensure that the most up to date evidence is available in the Cochrane Library to inform decision‐making. This latest version of the review was published in 2009. The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group are therefore temporarily withdrawing this review, with the full support of the author team, to allow time to determine whether the evidence is up‐to‐date.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
 
Last edited:
Supporting better health for those receiving care is central to Cochrane's mission to promote evidence‐informed health decision‐making by producing high quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence.

The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group is currently undertaking a strategic portfolio assessment of all existing and planned reviews and protocols, including those relating to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS).
Could this mean that some quality control is actually happening now at Cochrane regarding ME?
 
This seems a bit odd. Reviews are always going out of date but it's news to me that any get withdrawn. They've got a date on, so people can see how out of date they are and take that into account.

If the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group want to update anything about CFS, they ought to acknowledge that they have no business dealing with reviews of something that isn't a mental disorder, common or otherwise.
 
Could this mean that some quality control is actually happening now at Cochrane regarding ME?

I don't know how much confidence I have that a Mental Disorders Group to know much about assessing research and evidence quality, more likely they are just kicking the competition off their turf, perhaps we could ask them to comment on the recent re-analysis.
 
Last edited:
Is this being used as a guise to remove anything except CBT/GET or is it actually progress where they realize we have a real condition. I would be shocked if its because they realize we have an immune related condition.
Also just because research is old does not man its bad, there is a human bias to dismiss something old and presumably "outdated". I had read an article about this phenomenon some years ago that i wish i had bookmarked. Yet we still accept discoveries made centuries ago, from existence of elements to properties of materials to discovery of radioactive molecules and their toxicity.

All that said i know nothing about the original paper so can't comment on whether it should be thought of as good or garbage.
 
Reason for withdrawal from publication
--------------------------------------

[snip]

The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group is currently undertaking a strategic portfolio assessment of all existing and planned reviews and protocols, including those relating to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS).

[snip]

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.


Translation from 'buisness speak':
We fucked up and we know it. Trying to correct our mess now, but no way we're going to admit to anything.


And there really shouldn't be a strategy behind a porfolio assesment - by Cochrane - it should be about evidence and established knowledge.
 
My first thought was that Big Pharma might be getting Cochrane (using funding as the lever) to withdraw reviews of treatments that are not sold by Big Pharma, whether the reviews are positive or negative.
Remain to be convinced.

And as I think I said before, if we are to get effective treatments in ME/CFS, we most likely will need to get "Big Pharma" involved funding trials. Most trials of drugs, especially big trials, are paid for by big pharma. Small Pharma couldn't afford to run sufficient trials of Ampligen, for example.

I don't believe "Big Pharma" have been the cause of our problems in ME/CFS; it has been the promotion of nonpharmacological approaches that have caused the biggest problems.
 
Something smells fishy . . . . oh wait, a red herring?

And for heavens sake drop the portfolio terminology. To me it's a terminal symptom of what's wrong. Cochrane has become a financial institution. They may as well be peddaling widgets at this point.

One thing is certain to me. Evidence isn't as important as other considerations whatever they might review.

But I'm being unkind . . .

Again.

I don't have the wherewithal to dig deep enough to give any of these institutions any credit.
 
Supporting better health for those receiving care is central to Cochrane’s mission to promote evidence‐informed health decision‐making
In which case this group should be having nothing to do with CFS, not part of their remit.
The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group is currently undertaking a strategic portfolio assessment of all existing and planned reviews and protocols, including those relating to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS).
[My bold]
 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19821361
MAIN RESULTS:
No studies that met all inclusion criteria were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Although studies examining the use of TCM herbal products for chronic fatigue were located, methodologic limitations resulted in the exclusion of all studies. Of note, many of the studies labelled as RCTs and conducted in China did not utilize rigorous randomization procedures. Improvements in methodology in future studies is required for meaningful synthesis of data.

Hmm!
 
Back
Top Bottom