Search results

My understanding is that the new review, if it is ever produced by the writing group and advised by the IAG will then go through the peer review process normal for Cochrane reviews, and if it passes peer review and is accepted by whichever Cochrane editors are tasked with deciding, it should be...

My understanding is that the new review, if it is ever produced by the writing group and advised by the IAG will then go through the peer review process normal for Cochrane reviews, and if it passes peer review and is accepted by whichever Cochrane editors are tasked with deciding, it should be...

I had no idea what a subject access request is, so I looked it up; I can't see what personal info about any of us would be of interest to Cochrane and they might hold.

I don't think mental illness has anything to do with looking 'a bit odd'. People suffering from a whole range of mental illnesses look just like the rest of us, from my limited experience.

The usual conclusions: the treatment didn't work. And with a bit of cherry picking they managed to find one slightly statistically significant outcome if you ignore correction for multiple comparisons, so of course they conclude the treatment is promising and more research is warranted. Ridiculous.

I think it could be pointed out to the Charity Commission that Cochrane's methodology of basing recommendations only on clinical trials, and not taking into account data that contradicts the findings, and prioritising review teams egos over public health, is contrary to Cochrane's charitable...

That's a good question, Duncan. The masks review fiasco has reached other media, but ours is very unlikely to. I think the Charity Commission should be informed, and it would be good to get some wider cut through among medical media, but I don't think the general public media is a good target as...

For an organisation set up to provide up-to-date systematic reviews on treatments for all diseases, all they really are is a publishing house that specialises in systematic reviews. But they are also a UK registered charity, whose stated aim is primarily about the "protection and preservation...

I disagree with you Bobbler about confusion over the old 2019 published review and the planned new one. They have been clear all along that the process is intended to be what should be a straightforward series of steps: I. the 2019 review has gone through peer review and been published in...

I don't think non Government bodies like Cochrane can be subject to FOI.

Very mild again. Pretty much the same as previous times - about 2 days of sore arm, increased ME pain and slightly raised temperature (about 1 degree C above my normal). I took some paracetamol.

Errghhh! Wash your mouth out!

I sympathise if they have non disclosure agreements, but as volunteers working for a charity (Cochrane) on non sensitive material that's all in the public domain (research papers etc), I don’t see how any non disclosure agreement can be legally binding. We’re not asking anyone to disclose...

How very trying.

Exactly. Though they are taking their time reaching extinction, unfortunately.

I agree with all that, Hutan, the trouble is, we've said all that already in our letters and it seems they haven't bothered to read them. They are simply passing the buck to the IAG. I think if we say it all again, they will simply forward the emails to the IAG mail without reading them.

The 'matter is closed' part is referring to our questions about whether they are going to withdraw the 2019 review. The answer is, clearly as far as the editor in chief is concerned, the will not withdraw it until the replacement is published. The rest is just fobbing us off to the IAG for...

That sounds like really good news. The BPS people need to hear it from other professionals who tell them they are getting it wrong and harming patients. Great to hear the audience applauded.

Tri-psyciatrists

Trilobites??