Independent advisory group for the full update of the Cochrane review on exercise therapy and ME/CFS (2020), led by Hilda Bastian

I am happy to persist with Cochrane's internal procedures as long as it takes. And if eventually they have to report themselves to the charity commission (which they did over the dramatic Peter Gotzsche incident in 2018) that would be good. As you say, it is doubtful this will ever escalate to "serious incident", but you never know.

 

One of the only scenarios that make sense is that a lot is happening behind the scenes to undo the NICE guidance and Cochrane is taking a back seat to whether it succeeds. It's not as if the evidence grading will change, it is done. So Cochrane is not working from evidence, rather on what can be sold, regardless of evidence. Because it's irrelevant what is in the final guidance, it's the evidence they are supposed to be working from.

If the updated guidance is rejected back to its current version by political influence, Cochrane will have the cover to do nothing, regardless of what the evidence says or how poor it is. Which has been the formula so far, shown here again by simply refusing to grade the evidence for the CBT review and just slapping a weak label that won't appear in most published and re-hosted versions.

It frankly appears to be the formula that works for us: demand neutral evidence reviews. This is what happened with the IOM report. And again with NICE. And Cochrane is showing the way in how to deal with it: refuse to do an evaluation based on their own criteria. Because frankly they know it doesn't stand up to scrutiny or even their own criteria, which dismiss non-controlled open label trials with subjective outcomes as worthless, which make up all the evidence base here.

Neutral evidence reviews are the kryptonite here. We should push for more, to have institutions do real evaluations. It works. We can even see with recent updates in countries like Belgium and Finland. They are bad because they did not have to do a full evaluation, they simply cherry-picked what they wanted with a few concessions. With a full evaluation of the evidence, it would not have worked.

 

Here's the response from Cochrane. Unsurprising. I responded asking for a wee bit more detail on the criteria the editors used, which I don't suppose I will get. Next stop complaint I guess. And will probably contact the Charity Commission again. Does the fun ever stop?!

Dear Caroline,

The Editors have reviewed the information within the NICE guideline and the associated evidence review, and they have agreed that the criteria for a serious error has not been met. Therefore, the reviews on exercise for ME/CFS and cognitive behavioural therapy for ME/CFS will remain on the Cochrane Library, along with editorial notes explaining the status of each review. The investigation has now been concluded.

With best regards, Rachel

Rachel Marshall
Senior Editorial Officer
Editorial & Methods Department | Cochrane Central Executive

 

So... publishing a review with very low quality evidence is not a serious error. Interesting perspective. In the sense of "may you live in interesting times" but still.

I would be interested in the precise meaning of "editors have reviewed". How, exactly? Experience tells us that when such a thing happens in secrecy, it doesn't really amount to much.

This is the "gold standard" of medical evidence. Really says it all. Decades of stagnation in improving clinical outcomes and almost no one but the people who are forced to live with it is bothered by it. I don't get it. I guess that's what happens when a profession operates without accountability. Even in the best circumstances everything becomes self-serving.

 

https://uk.cochrane.org/our-funders-and-partners

Funny how ordinary people are held accountable for their deeds all the time yet so called organisations tasked with something as important as this just "make stuff up and carry on".

And, it would seem, they get pretty snippy at being asked to account.

 

I think I recall seeing that there is a Cochrane Australia that receives funding from Australian taxpayers (although I could be wrong). Is it worth writing to MPs and Ministers and asking them why they are funding an organisation which has no regard for rigorous science and for the safety of marginalised patients? (and copying all correspondence to Cochrane) Other Cochrane funders could similarly be targeted.

Given that they don't respond to reasoned argument, perhaps it's now time to exert political pressure on Cochrane.

 

Yes, I got horribly behind on this, and am working on ideas to try to make up time. Critique process nearly there, though, and progress report coming along too.

 

It's not their fault: it's on me - too ambitious about all the things I wanted done in the middle of a pandemic before making an announcement. High priority now.

 

Update on how Cochrane will move forward will be part of the progress report.

 

Hello again
This is what I replied last night - also copied the whole lot to Hilda so she knows the latest

Dear Rachel

Please could you confirm the criteria the editors used to come to this conclusion?

I have been clear about why these reviews should be withdrawn, which is the continued risk of harm to patients. As a charity whose beneficiaries are patients and the public, I expect Cochrane to give me more detail on how the conclusion that keeping these reviews on the library could not cause harm to patients was reached.

With best wishes

Caroline

 

Thanks, Adrian.

A brief response: this is the process for considering the merits of litigation:

1. Identify potential claimant(s)
2. Identify appropriate defendant(s)
3. Examine the cause(s) of action which might be available
4. Assess the evidence
5. Consider the likely defences
6. Form an initial opinion on the merits of the case

None of this can happen without the benefit of a full written case history.

In this case, the first three stages of that process are not straightforward and present a wide range of challenges. It would take an enormous amount of time and energy to go through it in detail. I'm completely wiped out by the Paul Garner saga of last week so I'm not up to it at the moment.

(In any event, anyone who was seriously considering pursuing any form of litigation in relation to this matter would be well-advised to get an expert opinion from a currently practising specialist lawyer.)

In order to form a proper opinion, it is necessary to approach the matter objectively and not from any partisan viewpoint. A great deal of responsible legal practice consists of advising clients of things they don't want to hear. That can be very painful - but it's the only right thing to do. I'm not saying that this would go nowhere - I don't know yet - but there would be many obstacles to overcome on the way.

OK - I've now used the word "thing/s" twice in one sentence. I know that means it's time to stop talking......!

[ETA: I've adjusted a couple of words in this post. It doesn't change anything overall but, as so often happens, looking back at it afterwards, it felt as though the wording could have been slightly better - eg. "not straightforward" was previously "highly complex".]

 

Good to hear and understandable, especially given how important clinical guidance is during a pandemic and how much work that must involve for you. But at least it ties in nicely given the massive overlap between ME and Long Covid.

Although Cochrane's behavior on the existing reviews remains baffling, especially with the NICE evidence review being completed.

 

Leading evidence-based group blames pandemic for 9-month delay pulling flawed cancer review
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/02...r-9-month-delay-pulling-flawed-cancer-review/

 

Really? That's not what Cochrane keep saying with regard to the CBT and GET reviews.

 

That's right. they changed their policy in August 2019 so that they can't be withdrawn even if they are outdated. I should let retraction watch know this

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1359830852146970624

I will also email them

I have now emailed them!