Search results

I had the impression you were reading my replies - should I re-send them if you've only seen one?

Important point: yes, we should have done that.

I did mean weeks - and although the slowdown was long, it won't continue that way.

Apologies again that I'm not going to pre-empt the report: and say the lack of a progress report does not mean there hasn't been any progress.

I'm very grateful for your comment, and I hope you will consider it was worthwhile as this develops.

I'm definitely hoping you won't give up. My uninformative responses are because I don't want to pre-empt the report, and I'll be more responsive afterwards, and as this moves forward.

COVID did have a huge impact, but although that was for a long time, it's not ongoing.

This isn't what's happening and there is no connection with the NICE guidelines.

I agree the delay in updating has been terrible - but that won't continue. I'll make it clear why things did not go as originally planned, in the first progress report. Sorry to be so vague at the moment - but I'll be happy to discuss in detail once that's out.

I don't see any indication that it was hurried, nor any link with these particular reviews. They didn't need to suddenly change the policy to not withdraw these reviews - they'd been not withdrawing them under the previous policy, too.

Perhaps it wasn't transparent to you because you weren't part of the organization? A Cochrane policy like this one takes a lot of consultation and debate among the 50+ editorial groups and others before a major editorial policy is changed, and they don't tend to be changed at short intervals as...

Update on how Cochrane will move forward will be part of the progress report.

It's not their fault: it's on me - too ambitious about all the things I wanted done in the middle of a pandemic before making an announcement. High priority now.

Yes, I got horribly behind on this, and am working on ideas to try to make up time. Critique process nearly there, though, and progress report coming along too.

I'm not going to express an opinion on a review I haven't read, or on a categorization of a review I haven't read.

I hope you don't think this is a cop-out, but although I looked, I'm not going to comment (except to say that I agree that for something this important, it's terrible that there still aren't high quality studies). That's because it would take me a while, given how many studies are in that...

Thanks, Trish - I've added it to the list of comments/article to go onto the list of writing about the Cochrane review. So it will definitely find its way into that analysis and consideration, which is about to get into gear.

Thanks - will read it.

Just for clarification: the original risk of bias tool also assessed aspects of outcomes separately (eg outcome assessment), and the new one still has domains for the whole trial (eg randomization).

Yes, that would be seen as confirmation that the accusations are justified, especially if competence is also brought into it. I'll give it some thought. I didn't mention names at that time or link to examples, because I didn't want to distract from what I was principally trying to achieve with...