Cochrane Review: 'Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome' 2017, Larun et al. - Recent developments, 2018-19

Great comment by Dr Edwards. Very disappointing answer from Cochrane, basically the usual: we recognize that this evidence meets none of our standards and it may change some time in the future but in the interval this misleading advice that does not meet any of our standards shall stand.

Why? Why should it stand if it does not meet the quality levels set out by the organization and fails on every single issue mentioned in this blog post? What is the reason why old evidence that does not meet current standards should remain despite massive reports of harm? Especially given how massively more important it has become because of COVID-19. WHY???!!! Cui bono?!

 

yes she has

 

My comment seems to have disappeared.

I was going to reply:

I realise that you in a difficult position , Selena, but I hope that deep down you realise that I am not that dumb.

 

I wonder who wrote the response? Did Selena, in which case she at least knew the party line about the review. Was it her line manager? In either case, who then pulled it?

 

For what it's worth, I can still see your comment and her reply.

ETA: Snapshot of that page archived here, https://web.archive.org/web/20200813185706/https://www.evidentlycochrane.net/treatments-can-harm/

 

Odd. I can still see it.

And yes, Selena Ryan-Vig wrote the reply.

 

I get it if I refresh once I have gone to the URL. Maybe the URL has been updated in some subtle way.
I think I had better not respond. The poor girl should be having a relaxing dinner by now.
Or should I?

 

my thoughts entirely

I hope you will. I feel a sense of outrage at the patronising nature of the response "i hope that answers some of your concerns" Ewww!
I cant stand it when they start to 'educate' people who clearly are very well aware, as if they were entirely new to the field.

yes. She can read it in the morning.

 

Perhaps the author was someone who has experience as a staffer for a politician.

 

I posted it.

 

I see that your response is still there.

Thank you so much for your comments on this blog.

I understand that Cochrane are keen to be a partner organisation for the Priority Setting Process, so am sure that some interesting conversations will be had...

 

Specifically the ME/CFS one? How would that work, and what do they think they could bring to the process? Realise you may not have any answers for those questions.

 

Yes, the ME PSP.
The Steering Group haven't started the process of signing up partners etc yet, but the JLA Facilitator mentioned at a Seed Group Meeting that Cochrane had expressed an interest in being a partner organisation. I think they are involved in this way in a number of PSPs.

 

Well my personal opinion is that they should stay well away, or be convinced to, unless they want to reduce the confidence that the patient population has in the PSP - my assumption is that this possibility wouldn't cross their minds, given that they think that they are all that is good about modern research.

 

Hmm, only if they were open to learning from others, as opposed to imparting the arcane Cochrane wisdom to the unwashed masses. And as I express above, I think they are best kept away anyway.