So the 2019 version that I had, that was published shortly after the amendment says (my bolding):
While the 2019 version that is now on the Cochrane website says (my bolding):
So It seems that they have the exact same DOI and citation but that there are (at least) two versions: one from 2019...
Thanks for providing this overview.
Not sure if you took this into account but I suspect that sequence A in the supplementary material means 'Treatment' at any timepoint rather than the group that first got treatment and then placebo. Otherwise it would not match with the results they report...
Yes I found this confusing.
For the 2017 Apr 25 update they mention revisions from 2017 May 05, all the way up to 2019 Jun 17. This seems like an error because all these changes came after the April 2017 update?
And for the 2019 Oct 02 update the revision dates go from 2020 Feb 06 to 2021...
Wasn't there some rule that if a review is substantially out of date, the editors can put a warning sign to it? Like they did with the 2008 review of CBT for ME/CFS. It says:
https://www.cochrane.org/CD001027/DEPRESSN_cognitive-behaviour-therapy-chronic-fatigue-syndrome
The Larun et al. review...
I also have a 2019 version that does not include the editorial note with a link to the update process, even though it includes all the rest of the version history, all the way back to 2004. The latest update mentioned is this:
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.
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...
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.
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.