This correspondence started after a meeting with new Editor-in-Chief Karla Soares-Weiser in July 2019. Karla has not responded in a substantive way to any of my emails.
My main concern after the review amendment was published in October 2019 was that there was no indication that a new version of the review was planned. I was also concerned that despite deciding this was an important high-profile review, there was no publicity from Cochrane about the fact that the over-optimistic conclusions of the previous version, used to underpin health policy and guidelines all over the world, had changed. Cochrane has a large “knowledge translation” department, and allegedly Cochrane exists to protect patients from treatments with poor evidence of benefit and no evidence of safety. Cochrane has made no attempt to communicate the change in conclusions, or to highlight the remaining serious problems with the review which has led to the formation of an independent advisory group to take Cochrane back to the drawing board. This is shocking failure in Cochrane’s duty of care to patients and the public, the beneficiaries of the charity.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:10 AM Caroline Struthers cstruthers222@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Karla
Thank you and Katie very much for making the time to meet us on Tuesday at EBMLive. We all appreciated it as we know you are extremely busy. I hope you enjoyed the rest of your time at the conference.
I have attached three documents with details of my interaction with Cochrane since I was
invited to submit summary of the problems with the CFS reviews to the Governing Board in November 2018. I had corresponded with David Tovey and others in the Editorial Unit since 2017, or possibly earlier. When I submitted the summary in November 2018, I was keen to make the Board aware of the issue, and so disappointed that they passed it back to David rather than seek independent external advice.
With best wishes
Caroline
From: Caroline Struthers
Sent: 24 October 2019 14:31
To: ‘ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org’ ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: FW: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Karla (cc Katie)
I noted the Exercise for CFS review was amended and republished on 2 October
(https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub8/full) . Unfortunately the old version (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/full) is
still live with no link on it pointing to the most recent version. All the other six earlier versions point to version 7 too. Please could someone in your team correct this as soon as possible? It would be useful also to have a link from the amended review to your editorial
https://www.cochrane.org/news/publication-cochrane-review-exercise-therapy-chronic-fatigue-syndrome where you acknowledge the review needs a completely new approach.
With best wishes
Caroline
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 12:28:27 PM
To: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Karla
I was just about to chase you as I had received no acknowledgement. However, checking the review, I was delighted to see you have sorted out the link from version 7 to version 8.
Best wishes
Caroline
From: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Sent: 29 October 2019 10:47
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Exercise for CFS Review
Apologies Caroline. I’m on leave until next Monday. Best wishes, Karla
Karla Soares-Weiser (MD, PhD)
Editor in Chief, Cochrane Library
Please excuse brevity
From: Caroline Struthers
Sent: 17 November 2019 14:50
To: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Karla
I never received a reply or acknowledgement of the two requests sent 24 October. However, I was pleased to see you fixed the links from previous versions to the latest version of the review. I have also noticed you have taken down the linked Cochrane Clinical Answer
However, you have not, as I requested, created a link from the amended review to your editorial about it. https://www.cochrane.org/news/publication-cochrane-review-exercise-therapy-chronic-fatigue- syndrome. The current version will continue to inform health care decisions, and potentially continue to harm people with ME. Given the trust in Cochrane reviews internationally, it is important that readers are aware that Cochrane has decided a completely new approach is necessary.
With best wishes
Caroline
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2020 at 08:56
To: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Karla
Happy New Year.
Please could you acknowledge receipt of my emails of 19 July, 17 November and 24 October? As I said in the previous two emails after publication of the amended review, it would make sense to include a link to your editorial about the decision to do a complete update and “involve partners from patient-advocacy groups from different parts of the world who will help us to embed a patient-focused, contemporary perspective on the review question, methods and findings.” Please could you reply to let me know if you are going to do this? If you decide not to, I could submit the request as feedback on the review instead, if you think that’s more appropriate.
With best wishes
Caroline
From: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Sent: 08 January 2020 11:09
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Caroline,
Happy New Year.
Many thanks for your email. I am happy for you to submit a comment and this will be dealt with using our regular process.
With best wishes, Karla
Karla Soares-Weiser (MD, MSc, PhD)
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Date: Wednesday, 8 January 2020 at 11:17
To: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Thanks Karla
Before I submit a comment, please can you let me know why you can’t grant the request to link from the amended review to your editorial about it?
With best wishes
Caroline
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Sent: 09 January 2020 15:40
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Caroline,
I’m Rachel, the new Senior Editorial Officer for Cochrane. Karla has forwarded me your emails regarding your request to include a link in the Cochrane Review on Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome to the news piece committing to a full update of the review.
We’d be very grateful if you could submit your request via the feedback mechanism on the Cochrane Library. This is our usual process for requesting changes to published Cochrane Reviews, and ensures a transparent and consistent approach.
We look forward to your receiving your comment through this channel.
Many thanks and best regards, Rachel
Rachel Marshall
Senior Editorial Officer
Editorial & Methods Department | Cochrane Central Executive
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Sent: 09 January 2020 16:03
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Rachel
Thanks for this response. I have looked again at the comments procedure and it says this
“Your comment will be reviewed within the two working days. If the comment meets the requirements as set out on this page, it will be referred to the Cochrane Review Group responsible for the article that you commented on. A member of the Cochrane Review Group editorial team will contact you to acknowledge receipt and to let you know the Group’s response. The Group may publish your comment on the Cochrane Library, and it may edit your comment before publication. The Group may also seek, and publish, a response from the review authors. The Cochrane Review or Protocol may be amended to reflect your comment, or your comment may have an impact on the next update.”
The comments procedure is for making a “comment on the content of a Cochrane Review or Protocol”
This request has nothing to do with the content of the amended review. I am asking for a link from the review to a news article about that review written by the Editor in Chief. I am not asking for the review content to be amended to reflect my comment.
I therefore will not waste my time submitting a comment via the feedback system, but will use the complaints procedure instead.
With best wishes
Caroline
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Sent: 09 January 2020 17:01
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Caroline, Thank you for your email, and we do not wish you waste your time. As your request is to add a link to the review, this would require a change in the published review, and therefore is considered a change in content. We appreciate the change you have requested is small, but it is not our usual process to make changes to reviews without receiving feedback through our website. With best regards, Rachel
Rachel Marshall
Senior Editorial Officer
Editorial & Methods Department | Cochrane Central Executive
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Sent: 09 January 2020 18:57:59
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Rachel
If you did not wish to waste my time, why did you not inform me of this in October? I also pointed out an error which needed correcting as the previous versions of the review were not pointing to the latest one. That error was corrected without either acknowledgement of my email, or thanks for pointing out the error. Please see below for the correspondence. My outstanding request to put a link to the news item about the review from the review was ignored after chasing twice. Now three months later I am told I should submit a comment via your website. I am happy to do this. Please can you assure me you will not (as outlined in your standard procedure) refer it to the Editorial Group but deal with it centrally and in a timely manner? If you cannot assure me of that I will submit a complaint.
With best wishes
Caroline
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Sent: 10 January 2020 09:26
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: Re: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Caroline, I can assure you that feedback sent via the website will be dealt with in a timely manner. Your feedback will automatically be sent to the Cochrane Review Group (CRG), and the central team will liaise with the CRG regarding a response. With regard to your previous emails, I am not in a position to comment as I was not in post at the time, but I will personally ensure you receive a response to this specific query. With best regards, Rachel
(Please note I am not in the office today, returning Monday)
From: Caroline Struthers
Sent: 10 January 2020 10:23
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
OK thanks Rachel
I reiterate that this not an editorial issue or a request to change the review content, it is to do with transparency. There is a defunct link to the Cochrane Clinical Answer from the previous version of the review. (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/full) . It would therefore be feasible to add a link to Karla’s news article in the same way on the latest version. Why would this need the consideration/approval of the CRG? It is not changing the content of the review. I will mention this in the comment.
With best wishes
Caroline
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
Comment submitted by me on 11 January 2020
On 24 October 2019 I wrote to Editor-in-Chief Karla Soares Weiser requesting a link from the amended review published on 2 October 2019 to her news article about it [1]. I received no acknowledgement of the request. I chased on 17 November and again on 7 January when Dr Soares-Weiser passed it on to Senior Editorial Officer Rachel Marshall. I was told by Ms Marshall that the only way my request would be considered is if I submitted it as a comment on the review. This system is designed for comments about review content which are forwarded to the Cochrane Review Group (CRG) who then liaise with the Central Editorial team about a response. I reiterated that this is a request for a link from the review to related Cochrane content, and therefore would not require any change to the review. I also pointed out that there is an existing system of linking from reviews to related content. For example, there is a link from the previous version of the review [2] to a (now archived) Cochrane Clinical Answer [3].
After nearly three months, despite chasing, I did not receive acknowledgement or response to a simple and reasonable request for transparency around this review. I am considering making a formal complaint about how the request has been handled.
[1] https://www.cochrane.org/news/publication-cochrane-review-exercise-therapy-chronic-fatigue-
Syndrome
[2] https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/full
[3] https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cca/doi/10.1002/cca.755/full
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Sent: 22 January 2020 14:47
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Rachel
Please could you give me an idea of the procedure and timeline for dealing with my request for a link from the review page
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub8/full via the “Linked to this review” facility (see annotation attached) to the related statement https://www.cochrane.org/news/publication-cochrane-review-exercise-therapy-chronic-fatigue-syndrome from the Editor in Chief?
Who is being consulted and how long have they been given to respond? As I have mentioned, this request is nothing to do with the content of the review which is why I originally wrote to Karla about it in October.
The feedback system as stated on your website is for making comments on the content of reviews. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/comments-submission
“Comments should be concise, relevant to the content of the article, and supported by references where necessary” My request is not relevant to the content of the article. It also says “If the comment meets the requirements as set out on this page, it will be referred to the Cochrane Review Group responsible for the article that you commented on”
I didn’t make a comment on the article, so the request doesn’t meet the requirements set out on this page. Please can you let me know what alternative procedure you are following, and how long you expect it to take?
With best wishes
Caroline
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Sent: 27 January 2020 10:04
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Caroline, thank you for your email and sorry I didn’t respond last week. I am dealing with the feedback, and I’ll be in contact as soon as we have a response. Many thanks, Rachel
Rachel Marshall
Senior Editorial Officer
Editorial & Methods Department | Cochrane Central Executive
From: Caroline Struthers
Sent: 27 January 2020 10:10
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Thanks Rachel
It isn’t feedback as I have said many times. It is a request for a specific action that can either be granted or not granted.
Best wishes
Caroline
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Sent: 10 February 2020 09:44
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Rachel
Please can you tell me who you are waiting for a response from? Have they been given a deadline in which to respond? It has been a month since I submitted this request via the feedback system because you insisted I did so, despite the fact it is not feedback on the content of the review. You promised a timely response. I had previously waited nearly three months with no response at all from Karla.
Many thanks
Caroline
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Sent: 10 February 2020 10:08
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Caroline,
A published note has now been added to the ‘Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome’ review, which includes a link to the statement from Karla outlining plans for the update of this review. The note is also included in the “What’s new section” of the review (links below). Communications about the status of the review, and any plans for revisions to the review, have previously been communicated using this published notes section.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub8/informationhttps://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub8/information#history
Many thanks and best regards, Rachel
Rachel Marshall
Senior Editorial Officer
Editorial & Methods Department | Cochrane Central Executive
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Sent: 10 February 2020 10:18
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Thanks Rachel
This is good news. This was done on 6 February, yet you didn’t tell me about it until I chased you this morning. Surely you could have let me know what you were planning. I simply don’t understand. Can you please explain? And why this was not done on 2 October when the amended version was published, or at least when I requested it later in October?
Best wishes
Caroline
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Sent: 10 February 2020 10:23
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Caroline, the link was added by the Cochrane Review Group and published on Thursday 6th February. I work part time and was not in the office on Friday, and this morning is my first time back in the office since it was published. As mentioned previously I was not working with Cochrane until December last year, so I can’t comment on what happened before I arrived, but I hope the issue is now resolved. Thank you for raising this with us.
With best regards, Rachel
Rachel Marshall
Senior Editorial Officer
Editorial & Methods Department | Cochrane Central Executive
From: Caroline Struthers
Sent: 10 February 2020 10:34
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
“Addition of new published note from the editorial team at Cochrane Editorial and Methods
Department”. That’s you. But you had to wait for the Review Group to publish it? What was the timing on that? I don’t understand why you couldn’t keep me informed of the process and timing.
I know you are not responsible for what happened before you arrived in December. I will make a formal complaint about that in due course.
Best wishes
Caroline
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Caroline Struthers
Sent: 11 February 2020 09:01
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Importance: High
Dear Rachel
Why has the publication of the amended version of the review on 2 October now disappeared from the history?
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub8/information#whatsNew
Best
Caroline
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Sent: 11 February 2020 09:28
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
There is now also nothing on the review to say the conclusions have changed in the 2 October amended review. That important note has also disappeared from the review which is even more serious.
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Sent: 11 February 2020 10:06
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Thanks Caroline, we are looking into your query. Many thanks, Rachel
Rachel Marshall
Senior Editorial Officer
Editorial & Methods Department | Cochrane Central Executive
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Sent: 11 February 2020 11:33
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
The reason is that you refused (as I asked repeatedly) to put a link to Karla’s statement as “linked content” from the review home page (as to podcasts and Cochrane Clinical Answers etc.). It is linked content. It is not an amendment to the review which needs to be in the History, or “What’s New”. You insisted on allowing the review group to put the note on the review and they messed it up.
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Sent: 11 February 2020 16:27
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Caroline,
I have investigated your query regarding the version of the review published on 2nd October. The editorial note and the publication history has not been deleted, but the date associated with the event is recorded as 8th August 2019 (when the note was written before publication). I have compared the two versions of the review (the 2nd October 2019 version and the 6th February 2020 version) and no information has been removed.
With best regards, Rachel
Rachel Marshall
Senior Editorial Officer
Editorial & Methods Department | Cochrane Central Executive
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Sent: 11 February 2020 16:52
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Importance: High
The review published on 2 October had “conclusions changed”. Because the conclusions changed. This is very important. This has now gone. Please investigate further.
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Sent: 11 February 2020 17:02
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Caroline, a new version of the review was published to include the link to the statement in the published note. The conclusions have not changed between the 2nd October 2019 version and the 6th February 2020 version, and therefore the event has not been marked as such. However, the conclusions changing between the previous versions is recorded, and has not been deleted from the review.
With best regards, Rachel
Rachel Marshall
Senior Editorial Officer
Editorial & Methods Department | Cochrane Central Executive
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Sent: 12 February 2020 12:28
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Rachel
Please can you point me to where it’s still recorded that the conclusions changed again between the note on 19 August 2019 (on version 7 published in 2017) and version 8 published on 2 October 2019? If the conclusions in fact didn’t change again between August 2019 and October 2019, please let me know.
Many thanks
Caroline
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Sent: 14 February 2020 11:59
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: Re: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Caroline,
There was no version of the review published in August 2019. The note written in August 2019 relates to the review published in October 2019, but there was some delay between the note being written and the review being published. The published review on the library has now been amended to clarify that the note written in August 2019 refers to the changes made to the October 2019 version. I have also passed on my comments to the team working on the Cochrane Library website about the potential for mismatching dates to cause confusion for readers, which will be considered in a future assessment of versioning of Cochrane Reviews.
I hope this addresses your points. Just to let you know I am now on leave, returning to the
office on Monday 24th February.
With best regards, Rachel
From: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Sent: 14 February 2020 12:20
To: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Thanks for your efforts Rachel
It’s certainly confusing, and it’s a shame that the prominent “conclusions changed” flag has now disappeared from the review because, as you pointed out, the conclusions didn’t change between the addition of the note with the link and the conclusions changing in August/October. The note about the link was not “an amendment” to the review. Please can you explain why this couldn’t have been avoided by using the “Linked to the review” facility? I repeatedly suggested this, but I never got an answer as to why it was not possible. I don’t even know if you understood what I was suggesting because every time it was ignored. I am happy to accept you can’t do it, but not without a, preferably
sensible, reason.
There is now another statement about the review which needs to be linked to
it. https://www.cochrane.org/news/appointment-lead-independent-advisory-group. I dread to think
what confusion will ensue if I ask for that to happen. Would I have to submit feedback again? I don’t think either you or I could face it. Please consider using the “Linked to this review” facility for both statements, or let me know why that is not possible.
The systems around versioning definitely need updating and I am grateful you have passed on comments about the confusion it causes for readers
Best wishes
Caroline
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow
From: Rachel Marshall rmarshall@cochrane.org
Sent: 24 February 2020 11:58
To: Caroline Struthers caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk
Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser ksoares-weiser@cochrane.org
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Caroline,
With regard to a link to the new statement about the advisory group lead, we are hoping to have a space on the Cochrane.org website where we include all information about the progress of the update of the ‘Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome’, including statements and updates on key milestones, so that people can have all information on the review in one space. We will then look to link from the review to this page, so we don’t need to keep going through the amendment process for the review every time there is an update. I’m in discussion with the web team about setting this up now, and I will let you know progress on this.
With regard to the “Related content” link/button in the right-hand panel on the Cochrane review, I’m sorry this was not communicated sooner, but we cannot link to Cochrane news statements from this button. This button can only link to a limited number of Cochrane products that go through a particular production process, such as editorials and podcasts. Technically it is not possible to link to Cochrane news statements from that button.
With best regards, Rachel
Rachel Marshall
Senior Editorial Officer
Editorial & Methods Department | Cochrane Central Executive
From: Caroline Struthers
Sent: 24 February 2020 15:17
To: Rachel Marshall Cc: Karla Soares-Weiser
Subject: RE: Exercise for CFS Review
Dear Rachel
Thanks for the information. I would be grateful if you would keep me updated on the space where all the information on the review update will be located, and how the link from the review will work. It would be “technically” possible to use the existing “related content” link if the list of types of content were extended to news items. But I understand you only currently use it for editorials or podcasts, or Cochrane Clinical answers. It would have been more appropriate for Karla to have written an editorial about the new approach to this review. A series of news items about a review with no link from the review itself trivialises the issue, and is not transparent.
All the best
Caroline
Caroline Struthers
Senior EQUATOR Research Fellow