New Coyne blog: "An open letter to the Cochrane Collaboration"

[worldbackwards]

He's still here, if anyone's still listening. I'll read it later, you tell me the highlights.

https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...bill-silverman-lies-a-moldering-in-his-grave/

 

[Kati]

James attacks the cochrane review concerning evidence over graded exercise therapy for ME/cfs.

I’m writing to ask you to consider the implications of having authors conduct a systematic review with the Cochrane collaboration brand attached who have ties to an industry which would benefit from particular conclusions. These same conclusions would personally enrich some of the authors professionally and personally.

Larun L, Odgaard-Jensen J, Brurberg KG, Chalder T, Dybwad M, Moss-Morris RE, Sharpe M, Wallman K, Wearden A, White PD, Glasziou PP. Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome (individual patient data) (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD011040. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011040/abstract

 

[Sasha]

It's a good thing - tackling PACE on lots of fronts looks like an effective strategy. Sooner or later, one of them will pay off and in the meantime, it will raise awareness about PACE among the wider community of scientists.

 

[Denise]

( @Sasha posted Clark Ellis' post about AYME's statement.)
AYME's statement references the Cochrane review mentioned in Coyne's new post.

 

[BurnA]

Can someone explain to me what exactly this Cochrane review was ?
And why are White, Sharpe and Chalders names on it ?
Thanks, I'm confused.

 

[Mrs Sowester]

Can someone explain to me what exactly this Cochrane review was ?
And why are White, Sharpe and Chalders names on it ?
Thanks, I'm confused.

Here it is
http://www.cochrane.org/CD003200/DEPRESSN_exercise-treatment-patients-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

 

[BurnA]

Here it is
http://www.cochrane.org/CD003200/DEPRESSN_exercise-treatment-patients-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

Thanks, but is that different to the one coyne quotes ?

 

[Mrs Sowester]

Thanks, but is that different to the one coyne quotes ?

I assumed it is the same one, but might be wrong...hopefully someone who knows will chip in

 

[Denise]

Coyne quotes:
Larun L, Odgaard-Jensen J, Brurberg KG, Chalder T, Dybwad M, Moss-Morris RE, Sharpe M, Wallman K, Wearden A, White PD, Glasziou PP. Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome (individual patient data) (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD011040. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011040/abstract
(which as you can see has (among others) Chalder, Sharpe, White as authors of a review on exercise therapy for "cfs")

 

[Stewart]

Thanks, but is that different to the one coyne quotes ?

It is - Coyne has linked to the protocol for the review (which is what White, Sharpe and Chalder were involved in writing) rather than the finished review. As near as I understand it, his complaint is that this is the next best thing to marking your own homework - except rather than mark it yourself you get a bunch of your friends to mark it in line with the criteria you've just given them.

So you can tell them which sorts of studies they should include in the review, which ones they should ignore, what data they should consider important and unimportant - and what criteria they should use when they inevitably decide that the PACE trial results are completely sound. And then you use the fact that your friends have given it a clean bill of health as evidence to prove that you're prepared to release the data to 'independent' researchers.

 

[Sasha]

It is - Coyne has linked to the protocol for the review (which is what White, Sharpe and Chalder were involved in writing) rather than the finished review. As near as I understand it, his complaint is that this is the next best thing to marking your own homework - except rather than mark it yourself you get a bunch of your friends to mark it in line with the criteria you've just given them.

So you can tell them which sorts of studies they should include in the review, which ones they should ignore, what data they should consider important and unimportant - and what criteria they should use when they inevitably decide that the PACE trial results are completely sound. And then you use the fact that your friends have given it a clean bill of health as evidence to prove that you're prepared to release the data to 'independent' researchers.

Is it actually the same review? The protocol is for an individual-patient-data review (where the review authors ask the study authors for their raw data) but the one with the results looks like it was based on published group results from each paper.

 

[Sasha]

Answered my own question: no, they're different. The one with results is based on the published literature and it says:

This review, which is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, will update the evidence base that serves as a resource for informed decision making by healthcare personnel and patients. A protocol for an accompanying individual patient data review on chronic fatigue syndrome and exercise therapy has been published (Larun 2014).

 

[Yogi]

Here is the previous discussion on PR.

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...tigue-syndrome-individual-patient-data.29468/