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

Yes, probably they didn't realize. Which underscores how misleading it is.

Thank you and also to those who reacted on Xitter.

Yes, and they have more than 90.000 followers on X. Many German-speaking physiotherapists, including those teaching at colleges, seem to like what they have to offer.

 

Have replied to their Tweet

 

I also have a 2019 version that does not include the editorial note with a link to the update process, even though it includes all the rest of the version history, all the way back to 2004. The latest update mentioned is this:

 

Wasn't there some rule that if a review is substantially out of date, the editors can put a warning sign to it? Like they did with the 2008 review of CBT for ME/CFS. It says:

https://www.cochrane.org/CD001027/DEPRESSN_cognitive-behaviour-therapy-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

The Larun et al. review is now also no longer maintained, with the latest search done 10 years ago.

Maybe @Caroline Struthers knows more about this procedure?

 

There is a Cochrane policy guide for when editorial notes can be used:

https://documentation.cochrane.org/egr/editorial-notes-318472364.html#Editorialnotes-Policy

I think the most relevant one might be Purpose 1 ("to add a statement by the Editor in Chief about the status or context of a Cochrane review or protocol" - "usually initiated by the Editor in Chief")?

 

A selection from the Cochrane policy guide for when editorial notes can be used (sorry formatting was the best I could manage):

It seems all are a possibility given

• the Editor in Chief could act if she wished
• there are problems with the review in terms of failure to address bias and failure to report harms, is out of date based on evidence prior to 2011, etc
• there is a more recent fuller review of the evidence that supersedes this review, namely that contained in the new NICE guidelines in the ME/CFS 2021 guidelines

However I doubt Cochrane would consider any grounds to add a further note that did not suit their BPS favourites.

 

That warning on the CBT review took me a lot of to-ing and fro-ing to secure. It was I think a last ditch attempt to get me off their back rather than something that is routinely done when reviews are badly out of date. I did ask them to put a similar note on all out of date reviews but, funnily enough, they said no. It was shortly after this note was put on the CBT review that the CEO Mark Wilson left Cochrane abruptly, but I think he stepped down mainly because the NIHR stopped funding UK Cochrane Groups on his watch. I will dig out the correspondence as I don't think I posted it on my blog. But this is the letter from MW sent to me days before he left Cochrane which mentions the note
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:03ca6e6b-ffe8-4e28-aa7b-74ec15f19459

 

I have an October 2019 version and am seeing the same thing as @MCFS

I have an Oct 3, 2019 PDF of the 2019 review and am seeing the same thing as @ME/CFS Skeptic - no editorial note and the most recent amendment is dated August 8, 2019.

The citation in the Oct 2019 PDF is listed as follows, which is the same as in the current PDF of the 2019 review (here).

"Larun L, Brurberg KG, Odgaard-Jensen J, Price JR. Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD003200. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub8."​

But the publication dates in these two PDFs are not the same:
My 2019 version - "Publication status and date: Edited (conclusions changed), published in Issue 10, 2019."
The current version - "Publication status and date: Edited (no change to conclusions), published in Issue 3, 2021."

And the "What's New" sections are different. For the Oct 3, 2019 PFD, there are 2 entries dated August 8, 2019 while in the current version, there's just one entry dated March 18, 2021. From August 8, 2019 to March 18, 2021 inclusive, there are 8 distinct dates of amendments. So does this suggest they are releasing a different version of the 2019 review for at least some of these different dates?

As an aside, the online version of the publication history (here) does not include the August 8, 2019 amendments. An error in maintaining the revision history for online purposes? the format is not the same as in the PDF so it looks like something being maintained separately

 

Yes I found this confusing.

For the 2017 Apr 25 update they mention revisions from 2017 May 05, all the way up to 2019 Jun 17. This seems like an error because all these changes came after the April 2017 update?

And for the 2019 Oct 02 update the revision dates go from 2020 Feb 06 to 2021 Mar 18. It doesn't mention the 8 August 2019 changes that explain why an amendment was made. That part seems to left out of the version history on the Cochrane website.

 

So the 2019 version that I had, that was published shortly after the amendment says (my bolding):

While the 2019 version that is now on the Cochrane website says (my bolding):

So It seems that they have the exact same DOI and citation but that there are (at least) two versions: one from 2019 without the editorial note and one from 2021 that has the editorial note.

In other words, they did not create a new citation and publication for the first editorial note that announced an update of the review. But they did so for the editorial note that announced this update is cancelled?

 

Ah, yes, the Air Bud excuse: Ain't no rule that says a dog can't play basketball. Very serious stuff. Bastian still shilling for Cochrane pretty much says everything.

 

"Updating Cochrane reviews
An update of a Cochrane review must involve a search for new studies."

Editorial policies | Cochrane Library

eta: this clearly didn't happen

 

They responded and basically told me to take it up with Cochrane. And it looks like their tweet is still up.

 

If you go to the old citation Larun et al (2019) is still there but at the top in red (if my memory serves me) is a note to say this is not the most recent version and a link to the identical Larun et al (2024).