Cochrane Review: 'Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome', Larun et al. - New version October 2019 and new date December 2024

When in reality, it's possible all that happened is the computer system automatically changed the date when they added the note.

 

Struggling with following the news on this -- just saw that obvious error on the '2024' review's abstract on Pubmed abstract where they added:

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01512342.

Which is this trial:

Pacing Activity Self-management for Patients With Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Information provided by Jo Nijs, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Responsible Party)

Last Update Posted 2015-12-17


Thought that would be good opportunity to alert Pubmed not only about that error but also about the re-publishing trick?

Apologies, not able to do that myself

 

Nothing has changed from the 2019 version. It's a con trick. They are shameless

 

Does it include the editorial notes?

 

Haven't been following this thread closely but I think what is being asked is what the differences are on the first page of the 2019 vs 2024 reviews? Automatic comparison of that page with Adobe's PDF comparison tool:

 

From that list, it looks like basically one account posted and around 20 others retweeted it from them. The original account is Physio Meets Science @PhysioMeScience

https://www.physiomeetsscience.net/

Might be worth telling them and anyone else who posts it what the deal is to see if they'll delete. Very likely they don't know it's not a new review.

Looks like at least one person has replied to their tweet to tell them.

I don't have a Twitter account anymore, but I used the contact form on their website.

 

Physio Meets Science seems to be a German commercial outfit providing physio 'educational' materials.

 

And now dated 2024. This is just mad. Do they expect to get away with it? Of course because they have got away with everything else, apart from the Nice guidelines. But now they have a publication dated after 2021.

 

thanks for doing that @Caroline Struthers

 

I've just looked up the website and the about us section (under membership) and under 'who we are' there are quite a lot of physios, sports scientists and some dieticians. I don't know whether any of the 20 retweeters match up with these?

 

"making PACE look modern"... by it being the most recent publication in there?

There is stuff from the 1990s? all I can think of is grunge and some of the strange haircuts now..

 

Thanks, this suggests that @Medfeb is right and that they combined the amendment and editorial note in the previous update. So the new publication for the editorial note might be standard practice and not intentional but I think it is still quite misleading.

 

Not sure -- I remember vaguely that adding an editorial note/ a link to the EiC's announcement was an idea proposed by forum people? I think the version history is right that it was not added before February 2020.

Also if you look at the version history between the updates there were a few other occasions when notes were added but that didn't result in a citation update (i.e. new year of publication).

Can't find any update only related to an added note.

I think it's more likely they added the editorial note to the 2019 version after February 2020 -- not sure how that could be proved other than if anyone had downloaded the original PDF version before the amendment.

Can't find the discussion on adding a link to the EiC's statement now -- but here's another editorial note that didn't result in a new date publication attached to that amendment: