Cochrane ME/CFS GET review temporarily withdrawn

I am of the view that the 'temporary' withdrawal is basically the last warning to the review authors to get their act together and provide substantive responses and appropriate changes, or the review will be permanently withdrawn.

This is closer to the end of a long process than to the start.

If Tovey is genuinely trying to clean up Cochrane then he must give – and be clearly seen to give – the authors of dodgy review papers every possible opportunity to correct their papers first.

It is how I would do it.

It takes time, and seems overly generous and bureaucratic, but it covers the necessary bases as much as practically possible. Pulling a major, influential, and controversial review from the literature is no small thing, and you have to get it right, technically and politically.
 
Last edited:
Lucibee said:
Yes - because the first quote (from the 2006 protocol) is actually about improvement.

It's because they didn't understand what they were doing, that they ended up making the recovery criteria *less strict* (>60) than the criteria they had already set for improvement (>70), which is why they then had to change the improvement criteria too (increase of 8 pts - which I've just noticed they say is 0.5 SD - oh what a mess!).

[ETA: and that's 0.5SD of the SF36 at baseline - which is already a highly selected population :banghead:]
Click to expand...

All the minus SD stuff is bullshit because the general population distribution is highly skewed with a prominent ceiling effect. The should be comparing to a population percentile. For the general population with demographics similar to the people in the PACE trial, a SF36 PF score of 60 is somewhere around the 10th percentile.
 
Sly Saint said:
could someone screen save all these Clare Gerada tweets; they might disappear.
Click to expand...
Her reply to Keith Geraghty is screen saved.

I also screen saved her first reply to Trish and her statements re accountability/ authority .

Will post later.

Edit: Here are the (only) ones I saved:
Bildschirmfoto vom 2018-10-20 11-39-35.png Bildschirmfoto vom 2018-10-20 11-41-07.png Bildschirmfoto vom 2018-10-20 11-43-16.png Bildschirmfoto vom 2018-10-20 11-43-36.png

Clare_G_to Keith_Geraghty.jpg

Edit 2: Good to see that others are doing more professional screenshots.
I already had missed this one now being reposted:

 
Last edited:
Lucibee said:
Keep digging, Clare. Keep digging...

View attachment 4421
Click to expand...
Of course one significant source of pressure on doctors might be when they give badly flawed advice to ME patients, in the sincere belief they are right and doing their best, when in fact they have themselves have been hoodwinked by the heavily influential flawed research. In some cases they might be considered victims of it as well. Doctors these days must be hugely too busy to follow all the research, and have to rely on the integrity of medical researchers, and to trust the system.
 
Kind of ironic that the lady tweeter is now off to join the general public on a march to apply pressure to the politicians to get their way on Brexit. Shouldn’t the public just sit quietly and accept whatever elected politicians decide or do about their future ? Think how difficult this is making if for politicians and how it would seem if they listened to the people or even bowed to public pressure and slightly changed course. It would be a disgrace.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
As far as I can see not. It seems the press release was not from them. The press release says Cochrane have taken the decision to withdraw, not that they have withdrawn.
Click to expand...

If you're on good terms with Cochrane, maybe it's time to suggest that they release their own statement that makes it very clear that the review is being withdrawn in reponse to high quality critique. It would be an opportunity for Cochrane to restore some trust and create a more positive relationship with patients.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom