Kitty
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
So some people seem to be keen to sell the review as 'new' on Xitter
When in reality, it's possible all that happened is the computer system automatically changed the date when they added the note.
So some people seem to be keen to sell the review as 'new' on Xitter
Nothing has changed from the 2019 version. It's a con trick. They are shamelessDoes anyone have acces to the 2024 version? Has anyone checked if it is the same as the 2019 one but with the editorial note added to it?
Does it include the editorial notes?Nothing has changed from the 2019 version. It's a con trick. They are shameless
Is this research misconduct that should be reported to COPE?Nothing has changed from the 2019 version. It's a con trick. They are shameless
So some people seem to be keen to sell the review as 'new' on Xitter
https://cochrane.altmetric.com/details/172238673/twitter
Included studies
Eight studies (Fulcher 1997; Jason 2007; Moss-Morris 2005; Powell2001; Wallman 2004; Wearden 1998; Wearden 2010; White 2011), met our inclusion criteria for this review in a total of 23 reports. All reports of the included studies were written in English andpublished in peer-reviewed journals. The eight studies randomly assigned a total of 1518 participants with sample sizes ranging between 49 (Moss-Morris 2005), and 641 participants (White 2011).
Just noting this from the 2019 (and of course the 2024) version
So, most recent included study was in 2011.
I think this is the real reason they canned the ME/CFS review. If they let that one get corrected properly it will have profound consequences for all psycho-behavioural reviews, as the whole field is corrupted by the same basic shitty pseudo-methodology.I would go further and suggest that many of the criticisms apply more widely to literature on all sorts of behavioural interventions for all sorts of medical conditions.
It is not even that much. They can only measure changes in the way that patients report their symptoms.A careful consideration by Cochrane of the risk of bias in unblinded trials of interventions with only subjective outcomes, especially interventions aiming to change the way the patient interprets symptoms,...
And that 2011 study (PACE) was supposed to be the definitive test of those previous non-definitive studies. Indeed it was the rationale for PACE.So, most recent included study was in 2011.
thanks for doing that @Caroline StruthersWow
e.g.
Caroline Struthers has replied
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?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.
"making PACE look modern"... by it being the most recent publication in there?Just noting this from the 2019 (and of course the 2024) version
So, most recent included study was in 2011.
Note that the 2019 version now has an added notice at the top saying:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub8/full
Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome
Authors' declarations of interest
Version published: 02 October 2019 Version history
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub8
This is not the most recent version
view the current version19 December 2024
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.Automatic comparison of that page with Adobe's PDF comparison tool:
Thanks, this suggests that @Medfeb is right and that they combined the amendment and editorial note in the previous update.
Amendment of the current version of the review:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub8/information#whatsNew
Amended 12 March 2020:
Note added from the editorial team at Cochrane Editorial and Methods Department on 12 March 2019[*], 'A webpage providing information and regular updates on the progress of the planned update of this Cochrane Review is available here: community.cochrane.org/organizational‐info/people/central‐executive‐team/editorial‐methods/projects/stakeholder‐engagement‐high‐profile‐reviews‐pilot'.
[*] typo (2019 instead of 2020) in the original]