1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 28th November 2022 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

World EBHC Day : October 20 2022

Discussion in 'Other health news and research' started by Sly Saint, Jun 26, 2022.

  1. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,140
    Location:
    UK
    World EBHC Day launches campaign to address global health challenges through partnerships for purpose
    https://www.cochrane.org/news/world...ealth-challenges-through-partnerships-purpose
     
  2. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,140
    Location:
    UK
    NICE and Cochrane: working together

    https://worldebhcday.org/blog/story?ebhc_blog_story_id=334
     
    oldtimer, Peter Trewhitt and Trish like this.
  3. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,002
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    There's a lot there that is very ironic when looked at from the position of a person with ME/CFS.

    e.g. Partnerships
    from the first document:
    That last sentence pretty much sums up the Cochrane Review of exercise as a treatment for ME/CFS - they'd like the appearance of collaboration with people with ME/CFS on the review with its advisory committee, but "vested interests, bureaucracy and inability to change" mean that the process is going nowhere useful.

    from the blog about NICE
    That's an interesting way to describe the 'lay members'. The first group of people bring their expertise in systematic reviews and health economics analyses; then there's the clinicians; and then, separated off by a comma, are the lay members with "an interest in the topic". There's no recognition that the lay members bring expertise. Perhaps it's pedantry, but the sentence construction betrays the bias. They could have easily said "The guidelines are produced by independent [advisory] committees of people with expertise in evidence analysis, health economics, clinical care and the patient experience."

    Describing NICE's approach as "The guidelines are produced by independent advisory committees" is interesting too. My impression is that the NICE ME/CFS committee wasn't an advisory committee at all, it led the production of the guideline. Contrast that with Cochrane's approach, which traditionally has involved anyone with a particular agenda to push volunteering to write the review. The involvement of an 'independent advisory group' was trialled for the Cochrane ME/CFS exercise review - it's a Cochrane invention and it was supposed to be the way of the future. But it was not at all clear what power the IAG would have to influence outcomes.


    e.g. Timing
    The timeline for the Cochrane ME/CFS exercise review has certainly been 'flexible'.

    Looks like they want input. :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2022
  4. ladycatlover

    ladycatlover Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    Suspect they wouldn't want our input! I don't think they could take the criticism. But I suppose we should try and communicate? Or is it really just pointless? Remember Paul thingy from Liverpool is one of their top guns. Makes me ashamed to live in Liverpool!
     
    alktipping likes this.
  5. Kitty

    Kitty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,298
    Location:
    UK
    Whether it's worth our bothering might depend on how they define the word "evidence". :whistle:
     
    ladycatlover and alktipping like this.

Share This Page