2025: The 2019/24 Cochrane Larun review Exercise Therapy for CFS - including IAG, campaign, petition, comments and articles

Just noting that PubMed now has a note below the abstract that says the 2024 version is an update of the 2019 version.


This is still incredible to me. The "update" is that there will be no update: "The Editorial note has been agreed to inform readers that Cochrane is ceasing the production of a full update of this Cochrane review."

The last "update" from 2017 to 2019 wasn't any more useful: "A statement from the Editor in Chief about this review and its planned update is available here: https://www.cochrane.org/news/cfs". Was that the whole update for 2019?

So you can just make your paper as new as you want by adding random little messages?

 

Apparently.

 

Any other reviews share the same fate I wonder ... ( Rhetorical)

 

Ann Milne made another comment on the Exercise review in December and the authors (Larun) have responded....I think this is the first time Larun has responded since 2015 ( https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cds....pub9/detailed-comment/en?messageId=447334172)

I have screenshotted Milne's comment and the reply. It seems Larun is replying to a completely different comment as she has changed the heading to make it about GRADE (which it isn't) rather than lack of clarity in the text of the review https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub9/read-comments

 

I noticed that Lillebeth Larun has now responded to a comment:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cds....pub9/detailed-comment/en?messageId=446137675

 

But it is standard practice for this group of scientists. Have the PACE supporters even once attempted to meaningfully respond to direct criticism, rather than responding with their own straw man.

 

I imagine Ann Milne will reply. For Larun to say the point estimate (-3.4) is clinically significant is very misleading (what a surprise) as the confidence interval is -5.3 to -1.6. In short, this means the true effect could be anywhere between these two estimates. So the true effect could be -1.6 which is not clinically significant. I think this is why it's called a non-zero effect.

Quoting from the results section of the review "If the pooled SMD estimate is re‐expressed on the 33‐point Chalder Fatigue Scale, it corresponds to an MD of −3.4 points (95% CI −5.3 to −1.6)"
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub9/full#CD003200-sec-0046

 

Yes GRADE recommends downgrading for imprecision if the CI crosses the threshold of interest. Which is the case here.

 

Any articles on this because it seems like a strange decision.

 

So Larun's answer is 'I still don't understand the basics of trial methodology and like to hide behind 'tools' generated by others who don't understand.'

 

Retraction Watch: Thousands demand withdrawal of review article recommending exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome

Cochrane abruptly ceased communication and made little effort to explain why the pilot was abandoned, said Hilda Bastian, a meta-scientist, writer and cartoonist in Australia who was a founding member of the Cochrane Collaboration. “It’s hard to find a word to describe how badly they treated everybody involved in this,” she said. “It’s been pretty appalling behavior.”

The review is of “extremely poor quality,” added Jo Edwards, an emeritus professor of Connective Tissue Medicine at University College London. Edwards said he has seen several past versions of the review. “It produces a message, which is contrary to what the NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] assessment has made and is simply not in the patients’ interest,” he said.

A petition calling for the review to be withdrawn started in September 2023 and has so far attracted more than 14,000 signatures from concerned patients and researchers.
​

Full article: https://retractionwatch.com/2025/01...xercise-therapy-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/

 

Bastian admits Cochrane has been appalling.
& Proff JE gets to counter Cochranes claims.

But not loving to see more of Cochranes attitude.

 

Quote from the retraction watch article:

Back in 2019, we made an overview of guidelines and policies that referred to the GET review here:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-influence-of-the-cochrane-review-on-get.11768/

 

@Trish did cite several examples in her comments on Hilda Bastion’s Blog, and the current Australian guidelines writing process is also relying heavily on Larun et al (2019 misleadingly now redated 2024). Perhaps someone with more reliable memory than me could provide the links.

Also it is worth using one of the science research search tools to identify the number of times Larun et al have been cited since 2019. I think we are looking at thousands of academic papers citing this out dated and flawed review relating to ME/CFS, to Long Covid and to other conditions.

It is good to see Hilda now speaking out so openly.

[added- see next comment for correction “You might be thinking of the article from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) on 'incremental exercise' for ME/CFS, written by Glasziou, which only cited PACE, Larun Cochrane (2019 version), and for some opaque reason an article on Long Covid research.”]

 

It's a pity that comments don't appear to be allowed.