Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Serious complaints about Cochrane Reviews are rare, but can pose a challenge to authors as to how best to respond. Cochrane has a webpage dedicated to submitting a complaint, however it doesn’t publish guidance on how to address complaints. Should authors seek advice beyond the scope of the review? Should complaints and responses be published? How much credence should authors give critics who have an obvious but undeclared conflict of interest?
Objectives: To offer a personal perspective on managing serious criticism of a Cochrane Review.
Methods: An account of how a group managed a series of complaints about a Cochrane Review.
Results: The initial complaint letter contained diverse criticisms including the title, the primary outcome and the use of the term ‘cell-tracking algorithms’ amongst others. There was agreement that we had robust evidence to defend our protocol and to not make any changes. We sought advice from an expert researcher and clinician in embryology, who supported our conclusions. In the meantime, the full review had been published, and we decided to republish the review with both letters appended.
A second letter was received one month later. It condemned the use of the intention-to-treat principle, the use of miscarriage per randomized woman and the heterogeneity of definitions of miscarriage between studies. This letter concluded with the demand for the review to be withdrawn and republished under different authorship. Again, we sought expert advice and referenced statistical advice from the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group and CONSORT. A reply was sent that defended our methodological decisions.
An internet search of the critics revealed that they both have undisclosed links with the time-lapse imaging industry.
Conclusions: Seeking advice from methodological, statistical and content experts is useful to help clarify the complaints raised and determine how to respond.
Commercial conflicts of interest may not be disclosed by critics, but it is important to respond equitably and to publish all correspondence with the review.
Objectives: To offer a personal perspective on managing serious criticism of a Cochrane Review.
Methods: An account of how a group managed a series of complaints about a Cochrane Review.
Results: The initial complaint letter contained diverse criticisms including the title, the primary outcome and the use of the term ‘cell-tracking algorithms’ amongst others. There was agreement that we had robust evidence to defend our protocol and to not make any changes. We sought advice from an expert researcher and clinician in embryology, who supported our conclusions. In the meantime, the full review had been published, and we decided to republish the review with both letters appended.
A second letter was received one month later. It condemned the use of the intention-to-treat principle, the use of miscarriage per randomized woman and the heterogeneity of definitions of miscarriage between studies. This letter concluded with the demand for the review to be withdrawn and republished under different authorship. Again, we sought expert advice and referenced statistical advice from the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group and CONSORT. A reply was sent that defended our methodological decisions.
An internet search of the critics revealed that they both have undisclosed links with the time-lapse imaging industry.
Conclusions: Seeking advice from methodological, statistical and content experts is useful to help clarify the complaints raised and determine how to respond.
Commercial conflicts of interest may not be disclosed by critics, but it is important to respond equitably and to publish all correspondence with the review.