Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn

I am concerned about this too. However the fact it was withdrawn at all is still a positive thing in many ways, even if they use it to bullet-proof the study against criticism. Furthermore if they do this they risk severely damaging their credibility, at a time when Cochrane's credibility is already damaged.

 

Yes, almost everything about PACE can be bad science except this. Its deliberate manipulation of data, given that PDW co-authored a paper in 2007 showing he knows the problems. In other research where manipulation has occurred the research has often been retracted immediately. Why not here?
(edited to add "about PACE")

 

Thats very good to hear @Jonathan Edwards thank you for sharing

 

In retrospect, maybe the reason for withdrawing the Chinese Dim Sum review first lies in here somewhere.

 

And Larun's camp wouldn't have leaked this to the press in an effort to apply public pressure on Cochrane unless all other efforts to resolve this had failed. This is the ultimate hail mary. It's their highest card they can play at this juncture, and they know it's a low card.

 

It looks more and more as if someone has shot themselves somewhere above the foot.

 

One person challenged them on this in a published letter:

 

Isn't it strange that no other major news outlet has reported about this (except Medscape taking over the Reuters article). It makes me wonder what's going on behind the scenes... Are they waiting for Cochrane to issue a press release or something? Hard to believe that the media doesn't see an interesting story in this..

 

Yes, if Clare Gerada is to be believed this is a matter for immediate international concern. Where are the journalists when you want them?

They are probably so confused by what Donald is saying about Middle Eastern murders and Teresa is saying about how nearly almost she has had a breakthough, or sort of, that they have lost the plot completely.

 

Maybe journalists called Cochrane, but were told that the decision is still in process and new information will be provided in due time etc. It feels like journalists are waiting for something...

 

And their reply is the well-worn tactic of simply repeating what they said in the paper:

and...

No acknowledgment that someone might have actually spotted an error.

 

Isn't the Reuters thing a SMC release? Didn't the SMC lose a lot of credit over the past year(s)?

 

I am not sure I understand. We probably made fun of whatever papers were in that review. Are we so powerful that Cochrane caved in and withdrew a review of some quality papers on chinese herbs for CFS (or was it CF)?

 

Yes.
Or maybe they thought it would be an idea to withdraw the herbs first to give the impression these withdrawals were part of a strategic policy and then oops there goes exercise. I think it more likely that withdrawing the herbs turned out to be easier. Maybe one day we will know.

 

I agree, that is what was odd. The Chinese herb review seemed fine - no harm to anyone so why withdraw it? But then why not withdraw it - unless you have a policy of withdrawing everything for a certain illness.

What I forget is what Cochrane has said about CBT. My impression is that the review is old and rather non-committal.

 

Yeah - it could just be that they decided it was worthless, so might as well be withdrawn. I wonder if they were hoping that withdrawing that one too would make this all seem like a low interest house cleaning exercise?

 

SMC have certainly been regarded with more scepticism recently. But maybe other outlets just see that if you read the piece it looks very flimsy and amateur.

'We got these leaked emails saying Cochrane were caving in to patients and we spoke to Cochrane who pointed out it was nothing to do with patients. And so we believed the authors and it is scandalous.'

 

Like they needed a practice run first, just to get the hang of it .

 

Two thoughts.

1. Having 'temporarily' withdrawn the review, is there anything in Cochrane's rules that sets a maximum time limit before a decision has to be made? Or can it now just lie fallow forever without any closure? Because it feels to me that if not properly concluded in some reasonable time frame, then the real lessons from this will be lost, rather than exposed as truths that need to be told.
   
   
2. Cochrane categorisations. I appreciate that categorising things is important to keep things manageable and to avoid chaos. But it feels to me there is a risk of biased reviews before anyone even lifts a finger. This CFS exercise review exemplifies an issue that could be the tip of a very large iceberg, especially with regards to MUS etc. The Cochrane system is such (unless I'm missing something), that the choice of reviewers is made based on a presumption of what medical category the review fits into. And yet one of the most crucial aspects that should be under review surely, is what medical category the review is best fitted to! But reviewers are surely going to (maybe unconsciously) favour their own 'home' category, and find it very hard to transfer responsibility across to a different category, both at a personal level, and probably up against procedural hurdles. Feels like the system is set up to strongly risk "pre-determined category" bias.
   
   Taking the ME/CFS reviews as examples, once in the mental illnesses category, how likely were those reviewers to proactively suggest the reviews were being undertaken in the wrong category? Not very likely at all would be my guess. To me this is really important, because there are likely a whole raft of other reviews down the line, for MUS issues etc, that risk the same problem. Cannot help thinking Cochrane need to do some really serious thinking about this.