http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/pdf/2046-4053-2-79.pdf I was just reading this paper, and some bits stood out to me as possibly interesting and relevant to CFS, so I thought that I would pull them out. Some of the history was interesting, as I'd assumed people were sceptical of the processes of science far further back than this... maybe it took time for anyone involved in science to get around to gathering evidence of these problems?: I know nothing about this stuff, so it's all quite interesting: Some quite nice summaries of important issues, and possibly worthwhile references: Apparently some evidence that assessors of bias can be biased by reputation of institution, researchers, etc: They talk about CONSORT being an important move forward, which is something I really don't know enough about. I don't know about EQUATOR either, but it sounds of interest: [ http://www.equator-network.org/ There is a copy of the CONSORT guidelines their, but it looked like the site might be difficult to browse unless you knew what you were looking for. (Having said that, I've now found a few interesting bits in their 'news' section).] A bit on registration: A bit OT, but this bit reminded me of Jonathan Edward's reporting that he thought multi-centre RCTs were often less effective as it was harder to keep high standards for patient selection, while here it is argued that this differences is likely to indicate a reduction in bias with multi-centre RCTs: Yay, it was only 9 pages long, as it's got 10 pages of references - I feel so free!