Search results

When anyone who disagrees is labeled either incompetent or having vested interests by virtue of disagreeing with absolutist statements, then I think it's hard to have genuine discussion outside a bubble. According to that absolutist statement, for example, every trial of epidurals for pain...

Others argue that a range of other studies (eg without control groups) about the potential harm of exercise for people with ME/CFS and people with ME/CFS' views about it should carry weight in addressing questions of the effects - including people's self-reports about their wellbeing, and the...

You can make a case for all sorts of things, and it's done all the time for individuals in trials and studies in systematic reviews. People can disagree about what's reasonable justification about almost anything (indeed, could probably quite safely delete the "almost" there). There's often...

Say it did all that very well, but the reason it was excluded was because it had 498 people in it and the inclusion criteria stipulated a minimum of 500 participants.

I think it's more than an either/or choice about how high or low the bar is set for entry. When a wider group of studies is included, then choices follow about how they will be critiqued and analyzed, including potentially pre-specifying sensitivity analyses - which examine the impact on results...

Yes, agree. It's a weird "in-between" time for Cochrane reviews in general and for the CFS reviews in particular. There's going to be a new system that enables this easily, but it's not functional yet. And the transfer of editorial responsibility isn't complete. Should be simple, but it's not...

Yes, agree. The next report will include the first wave of members. After the second wave, there will be one final slot that the members will choose how to fill. We don't expect rapid turnaround on nominations when we invite a group, once the group has accepted a position.

Yes - thanks for drawing my attention to it, though. We've been messaging/emailing about all this. Yes, I expect he will be contributing his views, and definitely keeping up with emerging data and research on post-Covid effects.

That's easy to answer: the status you're discussing from October 2018 has been overtaken by events. Being out of date is no longer a justification for withdrawing a Cochrane review, so it wouldn't apply. The responsibility for CFS is being transferred away the Common Mental Disorders Group, so...

I agree about Robert Courtney. And I have thoroughly expressed my great anger about how he and Tom, and their concerns and published comments, were mistreated. That's why a key starting point for me is to revisit those comments now (as well as those of others). The only remedies available to me...

Thanks! Cochrane doesn't, but I agree, and I am advocating for that. (My 30 May blog post: https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2020/05/30/lets-be-serious-about-bias-in-protocols-of-systematic-reviews/ .) Systematically looking at the concerns that have already been expressed about the Cochrane...

I agree nothing researchers or I have to deal with here is as bad as the effect of this illness on your life. I am listening, and reading a lot about people's experiences of the illness and concerns about the Cochrane review, and will continue to. I don't think Cochrane reviewers generally...

No worries. The story so far: The previous editor-in-chief (David Tovey) proposed withdrawing the review, but agreed to amend it instead, initiating a process involving multiple people. It was advanced but not completed when the new editor-in-chief took over in June 2019 (Karla Soares-Weiser)...

I don't think the fact that an old policy is followed until a new one takes its place is any reason to believe there was no lengthy internal process. And I see no reason to believe the policy change had anything to do with the ME/CFS review. It didn't need to be changed "to make it impossible to...

I don't think that instituting a complete update right after the end of one review and establishing an advisory group is hiding that the review was problematic. However, there are genuine differences of opinion about many issues. In general, I believe some people who promote interventions have...

Once the policy changed, the level of problem needed to retract a review became similar to other journals: and thus, equally difficult, when there's not a consensus. And there isn't consensus that the amended review is causing harm, so I don't think a change of mind is likely, unless something...

Thanks, cassava7! And those 2 organizations both on our list of clinician groups to contact - thanks!

Hello! I think perhaps you are speaking of a view about the past authors of the review? They have all stepped down so it will be a new group of authors, and the editors will be new as well (see the FAQs).

Thanks, Dave - will read.

Thanks!