Search results

Thanks! A point of clarification: I'm not employed by Cochrane and it wasn't out of concern for Cochrane. Nor are there constraints from Cochrane on my communication, other than obviously not claiming that I speak for the organization. I would not have accepted this role if it wasn't clear that...

Just two. The emails are on Cochrane's website The email for me/IAG is: cochrane.IAG@gmail.com The person responsible is the editor-in-chief: Karla Soares-Weiser, ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org Under the circumstances, I don't think it would be wise for me to reply to further posts until I've...

Thanks for the links about the ACTIVE project. Here's the text from March 2020 - the page is archived here: The review’s revision and update will be conducted by systematic reviewers from Cochrane Response (Cochrane’s evidence consultancy unit), and additional new co-authors are being...

Your question included considering whether particular named individuals would be "part of" the team. None of the authors participated in any of the meetings to discuss who the authors would be. I have no idea what the 2 systematic reviewers who are doing the work have thought about. They work...

People working together and talking to each other is a social process, and they're a little community when they work together for a long time - that's the "society" I was referring to.

2 systematic reviewers from Cochrane Response were allocated to that work: I never considered that they weren't well-enough skilled and positioned to do it, or that it wasn't a good way to do this. I'm not going to discuss reasons for any individual not being part of the review team.

All the IAG members do not discuss their health in their bios; some do. That's here.

All I can say is the same thing again: the group includes people with different perspectives. I understand some are opposed to that concept completely. (I did not say the pandemic prevented reviewing people in-depth.)

s (a) Sorry - I'm not going to pre-empt the June report here. (But when you think about this, don't forget the IAG is part of the process.) (b) And please don't consider yourself limited by me in any way in coming up with proposals for peer review - just don't ask me to commit to anything...

Excellent - thanks! My tunnel vision had me assuming it was a PSP related to NICE from a while ago & it didn't click. So now I'm guessing you mean the James Lind Alliance? https://www.psp-me.co.uk/ Yes, they do that great, and have great resources for it. A great example for us to include when...

Yeah, you can do a lot when it's not a pandemic, in an organization going into pandemic response mode, and people suddenly home-schooling left, right, and center (which I can attest even hit grandmothers pretty hard). (As I said, there'll be recommendations in the end about options, timelines, etc.)

Yes.

I agree with just about all of that - w00t!!! The only part I don't agree with is the peer review part: given the history here, the new editors are obviously keen to send out something they feel confident in, and I think that's totally understandable. It's not a reason to feel like this means...

Thanks for your post. Two was the maximum for consumers on this group for this process, with this timeline - but there is the IAG too, there will be peer reviewers, and there'll be other ways to contribute. And it's a Cochrane review, so if there's new evidence etc, it can kick into life again -...

Thanks, @Trish - sorry, I hadn't seen this had been posted, when I clicked post reply on the post I'd been drafting. I am going to expand on this in a methods report. But there's an answer to the "who came up with these criteria" question in the progress report: "The new author team was...

Thanks for hanging in there to help find a path forward from here, @Hutan. In replying, I'd also like to back to a post by @Trish that also had suggestions in there: Of the 2 aspects that @Trish has pointed out as standing in the way of moving constructively forward, one it seems to me we...

Thanks, yes - I saw that presentation at the 2020 CMRC meeting, so that was my introduction to her work.

Since I joined this Forum in May, I assured people that we were working hard and making progress: because reporting was delayed didn't mean that progress and involvement of people with ME/CFS wasn't happening. The March report stated explicitly that we were engaged in establishing an IAG and...

I was answering your first question: if it's on the list, that's the answer to the question of has it been analyzed, because everything on the list has been analyzed. I didn't reply to the other question, because to repeat again that there will be a new protocol, prepared by the author team as...

I took it for granted that I didn't need to repeat that the 3 organizations of people with ME/CFS nominated their own representatives to the IAG and that it would be obvious I didn't know people with a clinical background in ME/CFS. I didn't know people from those organizations of people with...