Cumbersome Cochrane Report (About ME/CFS Cochrane review)

Cheshire

Cheshire

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
In Dagens Medicine by Benedikte Monrad-Krohn
Cochrane has taken dubious methodological steps, and the scientific background for the ME / CFS treatment boards looks rather weak.
Click to expand...
In 2014, the review of GET was revised and three new studies were added (1). In the Review Group, all three PACE main researchers sat, and first writers and more were employed at the Knowledge Center, which is now part of the Public Health Institute. Cochrane concludes that graduated exercise therapy has a positive effect on the level of functioning, sleep and general health.
Click to expand...

Article
Google translate
 
Last edited:
as ever, I just mention possible weak points:

Have they got the 2014 Larun review a bit mixed up with the still unpublished IPD review? It was the IPD review that the PACE authors helped design the protocol of, and are due to be co-authors. For the 2014 Larun review the PACE PIs were not co-authors. I think it could be argued that this collaboration between them and Larun meant Larun was not independent of the PACE researchers. At the PACE information tribunal Chalder claimed that "disclosure [of PACE data] to the Cochrane review does not count as disclosure to independent scientists as all three of the PACE principal investigators sat on the review panel."

I'm not entirely sure of the translation, but it's possible that the description of the origin of the Oxford criteria is not quite right either.
 
"In the Cochrane report, five out of eight studies, including the PACE study, have defined ME / CFS according to the well-known Oxford criteria. These criteria are an extension of the Holmes criteria for ME / CFS and were designed to fit the biopsychosocial model for ME / CFS, launched in England by psychiatrist Sir Simon Wessley and employees 30 years ago."

"Cochrane has simply dropped looking at objective outcomes from the studies in their overview, which they themselves admit as a weakness ."

"Other studies show that there is not necessarily consistency between objective and subjective outcomes; Less fatigue does not necessarily result in increased activity level (2, 3.). It is not unlikely that the full effect Cochrane indicates at the end of the study may be due to bias due to this methodological deficiency. The PACE study has the same problem ."

"The Cochrane Guidebook for reviewers (Section 2.1) states that "every effort should be made to adhere to a predetermined protocol." Nevertheless, Cochrane went away from the prescriptive protocol, where the results should be set as the standardized average for the studies overall, and used average as primary power targets. "
 
Some of the links are nit good anymore.
This one: Kindlon TP. Objective measures found a lack of improvement for CBT & GET in the PACE Trial: subjective improvements may simply represent response biases or placebo effects in this non‐blinded trial. BMJ Rapid Response 2015. http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h227/rr‐10 (accessed May 18, 2016).
Can anybody help me with a working link? I guess it still exists?
 
benji said:
Some of the links are nit good anymore.
This one: Kindlon TP. Objective measures found a lack of improvement for CBT & GET in the PACE Trial: subjective improvements may simply represent response biases or placebo effects in this non‐blinded trial. BMJ Rapid Response 2015. http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h227/rr‐10 (accessed May 18, 2016).
Can anybody help me with a working link? I guess it still exists?
Click to expand...
https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h227/rr-10 works for me. The only difference I can see is that it is a https link, not http.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom