1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 26th September 2022 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

NICE and Cochrane sign collaborative agreement to deliver ‘living’ guideline recommendations

Discussion in 'Other health news and research' started by Sly Saint, Sep 1, 2021.

  1. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    7,846
    Location:
    UK
    rest of article here
    https://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.n...guideline+recommendations+01092021120500?open
     
    Hutan, Nightsong, sebaaa and 11 others like this.
  2. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,119
    Location:
    UK
  3. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,254
    How to brush aside the supposed independence of two organisations in one fell swoop.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2021
    FMMM1, Ash, SNT Gatchaman and 22 others like this.
  4. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,337
    A lot of scratched backs ?
     
    rainy, alktipping, DokaGirl and 7 others like this.
  5. Caroline Struthers

    Caroline Struthers Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    617
    Location:
    Oxford UK
  6. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,876
    My heart sinks with just reading the title of the thread.

    I do hope I am not being over pessimistic, and the NICE ME/CFS evidence review, though the resultant guidelines are not without fault, was to be fair of much higher standard than the related Cochrane reviews.
     
    FMMM1, Ash, Invisible Woman and 17 others like this.
  7. Simbindi

    Simbindi Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,279
    Location:
    Somerset, England
    Might be more reasonable if only both NICE and Cochrane had a proper understanding of what constitutes a conflict of interest and subsequently disregarded any reviews that were conducted by those researchers or clinicians who have them, but we know how this goes.

    With regards to ME/CFS this piece of news highlights how essential it is that PEM/PESE is considered the cardinal symptom of the condition by NICE.
     
    FMMM1, Ash, Invisible Woman and 15 others like this.
  8. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,334
    Location:
    Canada
    Two organizations utterly incapable of following through on necessary corrections taking several years inspires exactly zero confidence in their ability to do any of this. Neither can even correct basic mistakes made more than a decade ago with overwhelming evidence of failure and massively worsened outcomes.

    Zero chance that this is good for patients, it's the kind of news that should send shivers down millions of spines.
     
    FMMM1, Ash, Invisible Woman and 16 others like this.
  9. Ariel

    Ariel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    909
    Location:
    UK
    Why would NICE want to do this??
     
  10. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    11,484
    Location:
    London, UK
    I suspect to cut costs.

    A NICE review will be very expensive. And I think if I were the Department of Health I would wonder quite why four years have to be spent creating vast spreadsheets of a body of evidence that turns out to say nothing useful.

    Maybe a systematic review is needed but if Cochrane is mostly funded by NIHR the DoH is paying to do the same thing twice.
     
  11. CRG

    CRG Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    989
    Location:
    UK
    I guess they've agreed some set of protocols about how each uses data, very likely based on what has already been happening without a formal agreement, and this will mean that whenever Cochrane produces a review this can translate into a NICE update without NICE having to go through the full round of its processes. As a management approach it looks to be very sensible, how it works in practice time will tell. I don't think it is particularly sinister although the rule of unintended consequences will no doubt produce some interesting outcomes over time.
     
  12. Caroline Struthers

    Caroline Struthers Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    617
    Location:
    Oxford UK
  13. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,334
    Location:
    Canada
    "This is out of control, we rely on Cochrane for this part". NICE is quasi-governmental, subject to some minimal oversight, Cochrane is mostly a private club, has no accountability, will not repeat the mistake of correctly recognizing pseudoscience.
     
  14. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    7,846
    Location:
    UK
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2021
  15. Ariel

    Ariel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    909
    Location:
    UK
    Why is Cochrane funded by NIHR?
     
    FMMM1, Invisible Woman, Sean and 5 others like this.
  16. Caroline Struthers

    Caroline Struthers Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    617
    Location:
    Oxford UK
    Only the review groups (usually based round a disease area) based in the UK are funded by NIHR. That about half of them. Eg. the MS group is based in Italy so is not funded by NIHR. The Work Group is based in The Netherlands. The "consumers and communication" group is based in australia. There is a bloated central executive in London which is funded by NIHR but NIHR are threatening to withdraw the funding for infrastructure. The whole structure is pretty stupid. The way NICE does reviews (ie. reviewing all treatments for one condition at once to inform guidelines) is much more useful to patients. This collaboration with NICE is a way Cochrane can try and survive I guess because they can drip feed reviews on one treatment at a time. But the volunteer model leading to significant problems of researcher allegiance (as we saw with ME CFS reviews) needs to be addressed. I am not confident it will be. But NICE will save money because they won't have to pay professional non-conflicted reviewers any more.
     
  17. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,119
    Location:
    UK
    So, unprofessional conflicted reviewers are cheaper?

    Therefore the way to go.

    Gotta love 'em
     
    FMMM1, Ash, Invisible Woman and 17 others like this.
  18. Caroline Struthers

    Caroline Struthers Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    617
    Location:
    Oxford UK
    I'm sure they're not *all* unprofessional and conflicted. But there will be no way of telling whether they are or not, and presumably NICE won't be concerned about researcher allegiance any more than Cochrane were with the CFS reviews. Neither Cochrane or NICE look at conflicts in individual studies so I am sure they are not going to start now. I will write and ask how NICE are going to make sure Cochrane reviewers always use GRADE sensibly as they have made different judgements on the evidence quality for GET. There seems little point now in Cochrane continuing with the exercise review as there is no new evidence to feed into NICE's review. So perhaps they will finally withdraw it...
     
  19. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,334
    Location:
    Canada
    Worth every penny!

    Wait, is there a smaller currency than a penny because seriously it's not even close to be worth that much in its totality. About worth as much as a weak fart.
     
    FMMM1, Invisible Woman, Sean and 4 others like this.
  20. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    20,487
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    or, it ups the stakes for the Cochrane Exercise Review?

    Hasn't another PACE paper been promised? What could possibly go wrong?
     

Share This Page