LONDON (Reuters) - A respected science journal is to withdraw a much-cited review of evidence on an illness known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) amid fierce criticism and pressure from activists and patients.
The decision, described by the scientists involved as "disproportionate and poorly justified," is being seen as a victory for activists in a research field plagued by uncertainty and dispute over whether CFS, also known as myalgic encephalopathy (ME), has physical and psychological elements.
Emails seen by Reuters show editors at the influential Cochrane Review journal asking researchers who conducted the analysis, which was published in April 2017, to agree to it being temporarily withdrawn [and] to a statement saying their analysis requires "further work in response to feedback and complaints."
Published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane's evaluations are considered a gold standard in scientific literature and known internationally as dispassionate analyses of the best evidence on a given subject.
It is unusual for Cochrane to withdraw a review without the authors' agreement and unless new scientific evidence emerges for inclusion in an update.
Research into CFS and ME, widely referred to by the joint acronym CFS/ME, is highly contentious - in part because the illness is poorly understood. It is a severe, chronic illness characterized by long-term physical and mental fatigue…….
Reuters via medscape.com/903621
by Kate Kelland — October 18, 2018
Davis234 contributed this link to Trial By Error: Cochrane Decides to Withdraw Flawed Exercise Review 19 Octber 2018 at www.virology.ws, by David Tuller, DrPH; a NYT 2017 Op-Ed on the PACE Trial, and the following links among the total of expert critique of the Cochrane review in question:
jazzed contributed this link to cfs/me patient Jennifer Brea TEDsummit video (with transcript, etc).
The majority of these patient groups are women; these diagnoses and the medical (and personal) treatment meted out to women are —and always have been— inevitably political as a result.
For a Canadian perspective, see also: Recent Insights on 3 UnderRecognized conditions: ME/CFS, FM, & Environmental Sensitivities/MCS and other diaries at the tags listed at the left margin near the top.
See also [from medscape.com) Implicit Gender Bias in Patient Care: Let's Address, Not Dismiss — Jennifer L.W. Fink, BSN, — October 11, 2018
Related: They Didn't Believe her Pain: My Education in Interpersonal Violence — Amelia Goodfellow, MD; Curtis Bone MD, MHS; Lillian Gelberg MD, MSPH — Ann Fam Med. 2018;16(4):361-363 (and it may be worth considering that year after year of unintentional —or political— punitive medical ‘treatment’ adds up to interpersonal violence itself, sooner or later).
UPDATE: And for realistic perspective on the authoritativeness of med-lit reviews: Conflicting Meta-analyses Put 'Intellectual Conflicts of Interest' Front and Center — Medscape commentary, 24 Oct 2018, linking to:
a very interesting commentary, just published in the September 21 issue of the journal Science, called "The Metawars." Meta-analyses are supposed to end scientific debates; however, they often only cause more controversy.
[This is] a very interesting article and quite timely… [It] highlights a conflict of interest that is often not discussed that [should be] more frequently, which the author refers to as intellectual conflicts of interest. The author commented on the fact that meta-analyses, in particular, which are supposed to be at the highest level of evidence, have been generated for the specific purpose of communicating a certain point of view. Therefore, based on the articles that are selected for inclusion and the perspective, some meta-analyses might be far from rigorous, objective science.
The point to be made here is that there are multiple kinds of potential conflicts of interest that might occur. Obviously, financial conflicts of interest are the most prominent, but in this case, we are talking about [transparency in perspective and methodology]...