Principal investigators of PACE and FINE trial were involved in writing Cochrane review protocol to

[Gijs]

(...) ''King's College wrote to professor James Coyne that they did release PACE trial data for the Cochrane review (by Larun et al.).

What they forgot to mention is that the three principal investigators of the PACE trial, just like the principal investigator of the FINE trial, it's sister trial, were involved in writing the protocol for the Cochrane review of their own trials ...''
(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011040/full)

And the principal investigator of the FINE trial, was also part of the PACE trial group
Trial Steering Committee...............

For more read:

http://niceguidelines.blogspot.nl/2015/12/principal-investigators-of-pace-and.html

 

[Gijs]

Wow i think this is very important news also for James Coyne!

 

[alex3619]

I wrote about circles of reviewers, I am aware of citation circles too, but this one takes the cake. It seems you really can have your cake and eat it too if nobody is watching. My issue with EBM is essentially methodological. It fails when the methodology fails. Which is most of the time from what I can see, at least in the studies I have looked at. EBM, as currently practiced, is subject to huge bias. This is why I put more emphasis on EB practice, rather than EBM. EBM is failing, and few are asking the right questions.