Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol, 2020, Andersen et al.

Even compared to these disappointing time scales the replacement ME/CFS Exercise Review is a disaster, 4 to 5 years in, depending on where you set the start point, yet still no published protocol. We are already well beyond the 39 month upper median total publication time and still no protocol.

Given Cochrane themselves anticipate the time to full publication of some four times that taken to produce a protocol, does this mean that we will can still expect to wait for a further 16 to 20 years or longer for the completed replacement review? How on earth can Cochrane still justify not retracting the old 2019 review that they accepted was seriously flawed at its publication five years ago? What happened to the previous promises of urgency made in 2019.

Either Cochrane has had a change of heart and does not intend to replace the current harmful Exercise review despite previous promises or they are so incompetent to render them irrelevant to clinical care. Unfortunately how long will consumers of their reviews take to recognise that incompetence and stop trying to impose their recommendations on real life patients.

[edited to correct my arithmetic]

 

Unless it's a pet project borne out of personal obsession, like the weird and unnecessary 'review' of microclot treatments. Even though Cochrane only reviews pragmatic trial evidence, and there aren't any pragmatic trials, or any trials, or even treatments, since it's still at a research stage.

Cochrane is really just a private club of influencers that serves the self-interest of the people who are part of the club. And as we recently learned, Bastian is back in the fold, which likely explains why the exercise review process has been completely stalled for years.