August 8th, 2016: Understanding and Remembrance Day for Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
Jody Smith joins with other ME voices in honor of Understanding and Remembrance Day for Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

David Tovey (Editor in Chief of Cochrane Library) comments on Cochrane reviews of CFS

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Tom Kindlon, Apr 18, 2016.

  1. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes:
    8,244
  2. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,377
    Likes:
    8,244
    Part of this relates to part of a comment I submitted on the Cochrane Exercise therapy for CFS review (not the one on individual data that hasn't been published yet)

    Larun's response:

    My full submission can be read here:
    http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...ne-exercise-therapy-for-cfs-review-2015.39801

    James Coyne has written a blog challenging part of the response by Lillebeth Larun to my comments:
    Phoenix Rising thread on the blog is here:
    http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...icts-of-interest-on-get-for-cfs-review.43690/
     
    Comet, Effi, Valentijn and 5 others like this.
  3. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Hibernating

    Messages:
    4,613
    Likes:
    12,435
    South Australia
    Most of David Tovey's comments look rather weak and non-committal to me...
     
    Valentijn, Esther12, Bob and 4 others like this.
  4. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,095
    Likes:
    17,172
    Well, he's right about that.
     
    Bob, mango, Yogi and 2 others like this.
  5. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes:
    9,861
    he is bascally saying they didn't do anything wrong. But he does say
    I'm not getting excited but at least they seem to be somewhat progressive. At least they replied which is more than The Lancet have done.
     
    Mel9, Snow Leopard, Valentijn and 5 others like this.
  6. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes:
    6,885
    This response has some positives on data sharing. He also acknowledges the concerns raised in the quotes above.

    I would add that the first link that Tovey uses links to the wrong coyne blog post.


    "I didn’t know Bill Silverman, so I can’t judge whether he would be “a-mouldering in his grave”. However, I recognise that James Coyne has set down a challenge to Cochraneto explain its approach to commercial and academic conflicts of interest and also to respond to criticisms made in relation to the appraisal of the much debated PACE study."

    He links to this
    https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...tion-needs-to-clean-up-conflicts-of-interest/


    Which is not the post that Coyne makes reference to chalder, white, Sharpe and their insurance COIs for the second Cochrane review. This is actually the open letter to Cochrane.

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

    This is important as Tovey states:

    "James Coyne states that Lillebeth Larun is employed by an insurance company, but I am unclear on what basis this is determined. "

    I don't think anyone accused Larun of having insurance COIs and this is plain wrong.

    It is unclear whether these are simple errors in the article or intended to obfuscate. The two Cochrane reviews are confusing and I became confused initially.

    The impact is that linking to the wrong article downplays the issues and it appears on reading there is no cause for concern for someone unaware of the issues. The major COIs are for the second Cochrane review that Sharpe Chalder and White are directly involved in.
     
  7. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,522
    Yeah. It's positive in that it reflects an openness to dialogue, but in some ways I felt that we were past that being a positive to feel particularly pleased about. I remember thinking Coyne's first blog about this was less good than some of his others too. Maybe I'm missing something to all this though?
     
  8. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,583
    Likes:
    18,182
    To me issues have been raised with the integrity of the Cochrane review both in terms of the protocol for the individual patient data review where the protocol development included the PACE PIs and also the GET review where they defended the outcome switching that PACE did and judged it as if the original outcomes had been published.

    Tovey's response is very weak he basically defends the status quo. He does not say he will look further at the issues. He should be looking at how the individual patient review ended up with his with the Pace PIs helping design and fund the protocol; how the Cochrane brand is being used to claim this is independent and he needs to look at how the PACE trial is being mis-classified and outcome switching ignored.

    But more than that he needs to look at the entire Cochrane Common Mental disorders group. How is it that these issues were not picked up on and ignored. Are their other issues in other areas where patients are less vocal. How does he fix the group so that the integrity of reviews is brought up to standard and maintained. Otherwise the Cochrane brand is worthless and his inaction is helping to make it so.
     
  9. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes:
    9,861
    David Tovey (dtovey@cochrane.org, @DavidTovey)

    To those who raised concerns (@Yogi @user9876 ) why not contact him ?
    I think Coyne has a response in the pipeline
     
  10. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes:
    23,188
    Cynical me thinks the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders group exists because standards are lower in mental health. Just like with PACE elsewhere, the people in this area don't even seem to realize there is a problem, being so used to fraudulent junk science.

    Jonathan Edwards mentioned speaking with a psychiatrist close to PACE who did not understand why lack of blinding plus reliance on subjective outcomes was a problem. Willful ignorance or shocking incompetence?
     
  11. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,486
    Likes:
    35,030
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    This is possibly because this kind of research is very common in psychiatry. Tightening up the scientific methodology of psychiatry would endanger many psychiatric practices.
     
  12. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,946
    England (south coast)
  13. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes:
    6,885

    David Tovey has updated his blog.



    It would be good to compare to the original version.

    At first glance it appears the misleading part about Coyne and Lillibeth Larun has been removed as stated above.



    How can we compare against the first version if there are any other changes?

    Continue reading here.

    This blog still only links to one of Coyne blogs (20th March) rather than 6th March which more clearly demonstrates the insurance COIs and themselves responsible for authoring the Cochrane review.

    Thank you to David Tovey for correcting the errors in the blog. However it begs the question have Cochrane appropriately and sufficiently addressed the issue of Conflicts of Interests with White, Sharpe and Chalder given this fundamental confusion over who actually has the serious COIs?

    Is it not standard practice that it should it be made clear when edits or removing inaccurate statements in blogs that these should actually be stated clearly?

    Thank you also to Richard Smith (former editor of BMJ) for retweeting as well to his followers.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2016
    Kati, sarah darwins and Esther12 like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page