Thanks, this suggests that @Medfeb is right and that they combined the amendment and editorial note in the previous update. So the new publication...
Does it include the editorial notes?
That's possible but in the 2019 version I had stored, I can't find the editorial note. And in the version history it is dated at February 6 2020:...
Haven't read the full paper yet but noticed this: The difference between groups was 9.2 (95% CI, 4.3-14.2).
Wyller is also the senior author of this paper.
Does anyone have acces to the 2024 version? Has anyone checked if it is the same as the 2019 one but with the editorial note added to it?
It seems that between 2019 and 2024 there was no new publication of the same review. So for the editorial note that explained that the 2019...
New versions of the review were published when the authors responded to some of the feedback and comments. On PubMed I found the following...
To clarify myself: I can see the abstract and summary of the 2024 version of the review but not the full text. I do not have access to download...
Does anyone have access to the 2024 version? Am I correct to think that the latest search of the literature took place in May 2014, so more than...
I don't know what is standard practice at Cochrane but it does seem that previous editorial notes did not result in a new publication of the...
Looking at the version history: does seem like it was just about the editorial note as @Yann04 said: [ATTACH]
The comments are still there from what I can see, so linked to the 2024 version. [ATTACH] You mean this one? I think it is rather confusing to...
Why did they republish this review? Was something changed to this version?
Assuming that the text is correct and sequence A got placebo at visit 8, then it is strange that it outperformed sequence B (which received...
The text is rather confusing. They write: 'Sequence A received 1350 mg BC007 followed by placebo, sequence B received placebo, followed by 1350 mg...
The email by Cochrane to the authors states states: Would be interesting to read what was said and what the arguments agains the new review were....
The primary outcome of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was as follows: So although the difference was not statistically significant...
Before 2019 ME/CFS patients simply pointed out problems with the Larun et al. review and asked for these to be corrected or withdrawn. As far as I...
The paper says:
Separate names with a comma.
