Search results

Thanks, this suggests that @Medfeb is right and that they combined the amendment and editorial note in the previous update. So the new publication for the editorial note might be standard practice and not intentional but I think it is still quite misleading.

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: It's a bit confusing because the version history does not mentioned the new 2019 review and changes made to it. EDIT: perhaps someone could download...

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 review was being updated, they did not published a new version. But to announce that this updated is cancelled, they did?

New versions of the review were published when the authors responded to some of the feedback and comments. On PubMed I found the following versions of the review by Larun et al. (the first two versions of this review were by a different author team, namely Edmonds et al. in 2001 and 2004)...

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 it. I was wondering if anyone else have access to check if it is indeed the same as the 2019 but with the editorial note added to it. In the latest...

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 10 years ago?

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 entire review. For example the previous note about the update in 2020, did not result in a new version.

Looking at the version history: does seem like it was just about the editorial note as @Yann04 said:

The comments are still there from what I can see, so linked to the 2024 version. You mean this one? I think it is rather confusing to republish the review if nothing else changed. On Pubmed for example, you don't see the note so people will likely think that the review received an update in 2024.

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 treatment) after the crossover on the Bell scale. Here's a visualisation of that. After crossover the placebo group seem to have performed better? This...

The text is rather confusing. They write: 'Sequence A received 1350 mg BC007 followed by placebo, sequence B received placebo, followed by 1350 mg BC007.' But then they start comparing the sequences ("no statistically significant differences between sequence A und sequence B were observed")...

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. Would this be possible to request using FOI?

The primary outcome of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was as follows: So although the difference was not statistically significant (due to low sample size and rate of events), there were more than twice as many adverse events in the intervention than in the control group. If I...

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 can remember it was Cochrane itself that came with the initiative of writing a new review using a new protocol. Here's what they said in 2019: So...

The paper says: