'The internet racing ahead of the scientific evidence' paper

[Cece]

Great news about the Cochrane Review.

[ScutFarkus]

While they might just be fronts for the nay-sayers, I think the Cochrane review is highly regarded, and it is unlikely that they would be interested in meta-analysis of things anyone seriously thinks don't exist. I suppose anything is possible but I doubt it.

Actually, Cochrane has reviewed a lot of quack medicine whose effects many people seriously think don't exist. For example, I see four reviews of homeopathy on their website. Homeopathy is pretty much the poster child for ridiculous can't-possibly-work quack therapies. They also have numerous reviews of acupuncture, various herbal remedies, etc, all of which have many serious doubters (though these aren't nearly as implausible as homeopathy). A large number of these reviews merely conclude that there isn't yet enough evidence to conclude whether or not they work, which I suspect will be the CCSVI review's conclusion as well.

That said, I hope TIMS members dig up as much research as possible to make the Cochrane review complete and fair.

/Scut

[1eye]

Plain language summary: not enough evidence - more research needed.

However, they do tend to categorize. It may be that the consultation with TiMS people is a sign of their intention to categorize CCSVI with 'complementary', or as you refer to it, quack medicine.

However, facts which have been established by these studies should reveal themselves. For instance, many on this forum keep flogging the corpse of the "there ain't no such thing" statement. One would expect that fact to be resolved by its observation in several papers.

[PointsNorth]

I watched a re-broadcast of Charlie Rose from earlier this year and a nobel laureate (medicine) was interviewed (Paul Nurse). Later in his interview he voiced his displeasure with the internet as it gave equal billing to everyone's opinions irrespective of their relative education/credentials. From my standpoint, the internet has provided a level of transparency and democracy not yet experienced. Something like CCSVI is getting a fair viewing which it would otherwise not likely get in our lifetime. Yeah, we're getting a lot of noise but I would argue that we're intelligent enough to filter it. Let the light shine through and disinfect the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) being spread around.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1074

[Cece]

This is an older thread. Bumping it because the latest edition of the Cochrane review on CCSVI came out in December.
It can be found here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 2/abstract

Authors' conclusions

There is currently no high level evidence to support or refute the efficacy or safety of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for treatment of CCSVI in people with MS. Clinical practice should be guided by evidence supported by well-designed randomised controlled trials: closure of some of the gaps in the evidence may be feasible at the time of completion of the six ongoing clinical trials.

None of the current research meets the Cochrane review standards.
Is there any research planned or now underway that will meet those standards? Why did the six ongoing trials not meet the standards?

Our searches retrieved 159 references, six of which were to ongoing trials. Based on assessment of the title or abstract, or both, we excluded all of the studies, with the exception of one which was evaluated following examination of the full text report. However, this study also did not meet our inclusion criteria and was subsequently excluded.