So, are you saying that the fact the Cochrane removed the IPD doesn't really change anything, or, worse, indicates that Cochrane never intended to publish the individual patients data in the first place? So, the removal of the protocol is not necessarily a positive thing?
I don't think this was David's intended meaning. I agree with David that it looks as if 'Cochrane', by which we actually mean the editor in chief David Tovey, is playing things by the book and methodically moving in a sensible direction. It may be unreasonable to expect him (as a person) to do more and this looks to me like a clever way to indicate that he understands what needs to be done.
I think maybe we should view Cochrane not so much as a group of people with a political agenda, although historically there was an element of that. but more as a public library with Tovey as the librarian.
The way a public library goes ultimately depends on the people using it. There is a building and a librarian who has certain rules to stick to but both the choice of books and the rules ultimately depend on what the users want. So in a sense the problem here with peer review has not been Cochrane itself but the community of people who use Cochrane - those who write and referee the reviews. Tovey can only try to apply rules consistently.
It looks as if there is a rule that says that once a review is accepted by peer review and published it can only be withdrawn by agreement. There is every reason to think there is not going to be an agreement. If librarians overrule rules they can easily be fired so Tovey does not necessarily have elbow room. If someone is allowed to take out six books instead of four they cannot then be fined for taking out too many books.
BUT, if, as has happened, Cochrane realised that peer review was not working well and decided to send out a review to a wider range of referees, and the standard peer review system yielded a resounding No Thanks, then Tovey cannot be criticised for withdrawing that review permanently. He is following the rules to the letter. Nobody can cry foul about patient activists or him being biased.
So I actually think this is a hugely positive step. It confirms that in good faith Cochrane changed their peer review policy, as we were told they had, and have now stuck to to the results. Thanks to Kate Kelland everyone who might be interested has been made aware that Cochrane would also prefer to withdraw the original review. That leaves that review with no credibility in the context of NICE or whatever.
