Talk:Cochrane (organisation)

New logo and branding of Cochrane
The Cochrane has re-branded itself in terms of bringing uniformity and calling it just Cochrane instead of Cochrane Collaboration. It has also a new logo. The wikipedia page needs to be updated to reflect this. However I am not doing this since I have previously been employed by Cochrane and this might be perceived as CoI. More details : http://community.cochrane.org/community/development-projects/cochrane-brand  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsoumyadeepb (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll do some of these edits amosabo''t@lk; 19:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would be cool to see new logo (under fair use, of course - we have official partnership with Cochrane) used in the Wikipedia Library's very boring  Cochrane Userbox -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, on it. amosabo''t@lk; 20:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

2010 Cochrane & Campbell Colloquium Keynoter: Promoter of Rage Reduction
Rep. Patricia Schroeder, the unrepentant supporter of an abusive psychotherapy for adopted children, was keynoter for the 2010 Cochrane & Campbell Collaborations Joint Colloquium. Leaders of Cochrane and Campbell where made aware of Schroeder's promotion of the unvalidated practice called "Rage Reduction" (aka Attachment Therapy, Holding Therapy) -- a practice denounced by the American Psychological Association's Division on Child Maltreatment and the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children as "inappropriate for all children" (see task force report on Attachment Therapy in the journal "Child Malpractice," Feb 2006). For details see "Pat Schroeder’s endorsement of Rage Reduction Therapy: The Cult of the Celebrity Strikes Again" by Linda Rosa, RN, Science-Based Medicine, October 8, 2010

Opinions
I would like to see some independant reviews and opionins about the collaboration. To get a clue about the quality of their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.109.198 (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Me too. As an avid WP reader, I have enormous respect for the quality of most of WP.  There is one particularly nasty exception when it comes to medically-related articles, and that is the constant and gratuitous inclusion of this group's seemingly-important 'meta' analyses.  I mean, come on, is that a joke?  Piece together the work of the *real* scientists and then arrogantly say "yep" or "nope"?  As of today I am launching my own meta-meta-analysis of the Cochrane Collaborations' meta-analyses.  I have a strong suspicion that we will ultimately conclude that there is no sufficient basis to believe inclusion of the CC's meta-analyses in Wikipedia serves any purpose other than to waste the time of meta-meta committees like ourselves.  We have have much more important things to do, like disseminate information on pan-agnostic anti-atheism.  No but seriously.  These gratuitous inclusions are a very noticeable smudge on the shiny exterior of WP's medical section.  As someone who understands the field, I have *never* found any of their results productive (and sometimes, frankly, they're downright wrong).  And if I weren't someone who understood the field, then, I mean, I wouldn't be taking advice from some random organization that's in bed with Wikipedia.  So either way, there's just not much to be gained.2601:E:CC80:118:C58D:483B:42CF:85FD (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that some IP address was just rearranging this message.
 * If not Cochrane, then what would be a good source?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  10:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tried to tone it down a bit (this is the same person, but now a different IP). Here's my take on it: we already HAVE good sources -- primary, peer-reviewed papers on clinical trials and so forth.  Often, it seems that Cochrane Collabs are cited as a sort of 'summary' of the existing literature, but in a way that trivializes it -- e.g., Cochrane meta-analysis has found that X was not statistically significant in affecting Y -- and often in a way that contradicts at least some of the literature (indeed, the idea of the meta-analysis is to smooth over what might be perceived as spurious results).  I believe that it's far more productive to let the primary sources say what they will to get a clear picture of the research, rather than try to come to an ultimate conclusion with a meta-analysis.  The vast majority of readers who don't work in whatever field is of relevance will likely come away remembering only the result of Cochrane, rather than having the real, if not-so-pretty picture: that several studies have produced somewhat-conflicting results and, hence, the relationship between X and Y remains unclear.  Let's put it this way -- I've never seen Cochrane cited by an authoritative textbook source.  Instead, non-meta sources are cited, and if the conclusions thereof are unclear, it is simply stated as such (since this outcome is more than common in the medical field).  So my encouragement is to leave Cochrane out and instead to let the sources speak for themselves.  Either way, it would REALLY help to have some idea of the authority of this group. 70.172.234.150 (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is easier to address. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are not a place for original research or primary sources, so when only primary sources exist to cover a concept, then that concept is not eligible for coverage in Wikipedia. As you say, people should seek the primary sources, leave the sources to say what they will, and draw their own conclusions. This should happen outside of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia should be blank on such topics.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Merging with Cochrane Library
Could easily be a subsection of this page. II | (t - c) 05:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, don't merge. Three of the databases in the Cochrane Library (DARE, HTA, NHSEED) are not produced directly by the Cochrane Collaboration, but come instead from the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. The collaboration and the library are distinct entities. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That could easily be explained in the subsection. II  | (t - c) 21:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Should not be merged, keep it as it is. Mainak (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Tone of article.
The tone of this article is that of a commercial advertisement. There is a strong impression of personal bias on the part of the authors.Deej9000 (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"The author"? This article has over 40 contributors, none of whom have made more than four edits. Qwfp (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

UKCC
The UK Cochrane Centre is widely cited by third-party secondary sources  new and old , therefore fulfilling notability criteria and warranting its own article.

It is independent in funding from the Collaboration and the Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre is responsible for Cochrane in the Middle East.

(I'm new to this so would appreciate a second opinion)

--Amosabo (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because something is notable and can have its own article does not mean that it should. I am actually talking this through right now on the article for my organization, Consumer Reports, and wondering what ought to be done. I would say first write some content and put it here in Cochrane Collaboration, then if it seems clever to fork that content off into its own independent article then do it. It is difficult to talk about what should be done with information which has not been produced. Can you write something here in a subsection for now?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * All right, I've added a subsection here for now and we'll see if it needs expanding to a separate page later.--Amosabo (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

seems "cult-ish" like TED
seems "cult-ish" like TED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.134.108 (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources readily available via 'Cochrane in the News' archive
Per WP:Primary, please start replacing - or at least supplementing - self-referential citations to CC sites with references to reliable secondary sources that are unaffiliated with the Cochrane Collaboration. These news articles are easily and freely accessible via the 'Cochrane in the News' archive. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Cochrane groups, fields, and centres
Cochrane now has 14 centres, 53 groups, and 12 fields (numbers need updating in page, will update them) I do not see a reason for specific centres/groups/fields to be mentioned on this page. I suggest they be listed and any extra details left to new pages if need be. Any opinions? amosabo''t@lk; —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cochrane (organisation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140905044321/https://www.radcliffehealth.com/sites/radcliffehealth.com/files/books/samplechapter/5853/Gotzsche%20chpt%2012-45f64580rdz.pdf to https://www.radcliffehealth.com/sites/radcliffehealth.com/files/books/samplechapter/5853/Gotzsche%20chpt%2012-45f64580rdz.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

the seven trials in the logo
Anybody know or interested in the citation for the systematic review on which the logo is based? I found: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2137711 (1990) - available through sci.hub.cc with DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb01711.x Table 4 is close but doesn't seem to be it exactly. In the R package rmeta, the data for the logo is called "cochrane" - 7 studies: Auckland, Block, Doran, Gamsu, Morrison, Papageorgiou, Tauesch, but there is no citation for a systematic review or for wherever the data came from. Maybe it was never published; just those 7 trials used because it made a nice plot for the logo? JuanTamad (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The current article's ref 16 "Explanation of the Cochrane logo" gives the explanation (more detailed than Cochrane's updated version), though it needs careful reading:
 * "...The first of these RCTs was reported in 1972. The diagram summarises the evidence that would have been revealed had the available RCTs been reviewed systematically. A decade later it indicates strongly that corticosteroids reduce the risk of babies dying from the complications of immaturity. ... By 1991, seven more trials had been reported... Because no systematic review of these trials had been published until 1989..."
 * (my italics)
 * So I think you're right that it was never published with just those first seven trials, which are the ones that would have been available if a meta-analysis had been done in around 1982. But there's a bit more rationale than just that "it made a nice plot for the logo". Qwfp (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was interested in finding and citing the systematic review with a forest plot that became the log, but couldn't find it. However, Crowley et al 1990 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2137711) included 12 trials and has a table of 7 trials that included babies born at less than 31 weeks "show that corticosteriod administration is followed by an unambiguous and important reduction in the risk of respiratory morbidity... (typical odds ration 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.60) are not quite the data in the logo though. Table 4 in Crowley also includes a report in 1989 (Gamsu 1989). So, I looks like the forest plot in the systematic review was unpublished. I would expect to see that stated somewhere in the WP article, which would of course explain the absense of a citation. JuanTamad (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just edited Cochrane (organisation) in an attempt to clarify it a bit — see diff. Feel free to improve it further! Qwfp (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * JuanTamad, if you have a plot from which the logo was derived, or R code that would allow me to make it, could you please post it on Commons or contact me? I have some articles that could use it. HLHJ (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can't remember details of all this off top of head. I have a book that says the R package rmeta includes the data for the 7 trials to draw the logo. It's from Applied Meta-Analysis with R by Chen and Peace. You want to use it on other Cochrane-related articles? 03:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you, JuanTamad. Actually I want to use it in further research is needed and blobbogram, but here might also be useful. Unfortunately I don't have the year of the publication of any of the studies, just a last-name label for each one. If anyone can give me even "Nemo et al., 1978" for all seven, it would improve the diagram. HLHJ (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've posted the year-of-study-less diagram in the article. If anyone has the years, ping me to insert them (or do it yourself; I posted the R code on Commons). If anyone familliar with the data set would also check the other uses of the diagram for accuracy, I'd be grateful. HLHJ (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am trying to cleanup the page and remove the WP:SPS citations to bring it up the Wikipedia's standards for organizations. Does anyone have any suggestions for non-Cochrane sites that can be used for the logo description? Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Too many citations to self-published sources
said in February 2017 "what a nightmare. this is worse than many articles about drug companies i have seen" when putting "advertising" and "self-published source" warning templates on the article. I think it is overly dramatic to compare this article to commercialism in big pharma articles but I can agree that there should be fewer and ideally no citations to self published sources.

I asked a colleague at Cochrane for third party sources and they gave me one journal-indexed source to describe the relationship between Cochrane and the WHO. More could be done. This is a start. Thanks Jytdog for raising the issue.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi
 * I have been compiling a list of non-WP:SPS sources. Here is what I have so far. I am drafting suggestions on how to use these (and what to remove) in my sandbox. It is just a rough draft at this point. If you don't mind letting me know if the below citations are appropriate, I would appreciate your feedback. Can I remove the presently used cochrane.org citations + some content myself to clean up the article as per the multiple issues warning, or is this a COI?
 * (same as what was proposed below, a few months ago, but I cannot find any info that this author has ties to Cochrane. Please let me know if I am missing something on this one.
 * I will continue to pull up more sources this week, but if I can get feedback on this list, it will give me a good start. Thank you! JenOttawa (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (same as what was proposed below, a few months ago, but I cannot find any info that this author has ties to Cochrane. Please let me know if I am missing something on this one.
 * I will continue to pull up more sources this week, but if I can get feedback on this list, it will give me a good start. Thank you! JenOttawa (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I will continue to pull up more sources this week, but if I can get feedback on this list, it will give me a good start. Thank you! JenOttawa (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I will continue to pull up more sources this week, but if I can get feedback on this list, it will give me a good start. Thank you! JenOttawa (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The #5 NIH source is just one sentence of cataloging information. If you find it useful then I would say use it. The others seem great also. I advise caution and seeking community feedback in every step. Regardless of what any rules might say, the ultimate authority which gets respect is a review by an uninvolved other editor and sufficient discussion of what you are doing. If you do direct edits and anyone complains, then regardless of rules, the organization is in the wrong. If you take the extra step of talking things out on the talkpage first, then editing the article second, then the organization is in compliance. There is a sort of direct editing which is encouraged for experienced COI editors - directly edit the article, then undo your edit. This lets reviewers see exactly what you are proposing by viewing the edits in a linnk which you provide to the history. This is called "showing a self-revert", and it can be easier than describing an idea.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice I will try this. I appreciate both you and Jytdog's time in flagging these issues, and helping me learn how to improve the page!JenOttawa (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have tried to demonstrate a few of my ideas to improve the page using "showing self-revert". They include modifying the text in the lead to reflect sources from the nytimes, Science, and NIH. I also suggested removing content that I could not find any non-SPS sources for. Does anyone have any suggestions on the infobox? It contains all cochrane.org sites. I was looking at a few other organizations, some don't have citations, others don't have infoboxes. I also looked atMOS:INFOBOX. Suggestions welcome! Thanks again for your help! JenOttawa (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * do you have any time to take a peek at my suggestions in the "self-revert"? I can also flag this at WP:MED page. Thanks! JenOttawa (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * James looked at my "self-revert" suggestions. Do you either of you have any advice on the infobox? All WP:SPS right now... I can make more suggestions now that I have a better feeling that I am on the right track. Always learning and I appreciate your support and assistance. Thanks again, Jenny. JenOttawa (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This looks good. Replaces internal sources to third party source. Have thus carried out your edit. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I have just done a second round of "showing my self-revert". This time I have suggested removing quite a bit of WP:SPS content.JenOttawa (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Cochrane groups
Would you please review my edit? The article included a listing of Cochrane regional offices and special project groups. Most content had no citations, some was backed by self-published sources, and some to articles which described the research projects but not the significance of the organization which did it. I deleted it all. I would appreciate your thoughts on that.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That was an improvement, yes. There is a lot more to do. Cochrane has been well covered in independent and reliable sources and the content needs to be extensively reworked to cite and summarize them. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Do you have any suggestions on how we can improve this page? I compiled a list of suggested improvements (below) but do not feel comfortable editing them myself due to my role with Cochrane. If the suggestions are approved via community consensus, who should/can add them in? Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of what you brought was yet more SPS - what we need are more independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. I appreciate the feedback . I will go back through the list and try again! JenOttawa (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My edit makes it look like I suggested changes to the infobox. When I look at the final (suggested) version, I only changed one Cochrane reference (for # volunteers) to a non-SPS source. Thanks.JenOttawa (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Complaints about Cochrane reviews
I have a couple complaints against Cochrane reviews. Right now I'm readin' one about whether getting your teeth cleaned by a dentist is a good idea. They found 88 papers in the literature, and then threw out 83 of them for various reasons. The other five concerned only three studies. For various reasons, they could hardly draw any conclusions. Any time a p-value comes out less than 5% they say there is evidence for whatever it may be, and any time it comes out greater than 5% they say there is no evidence! (If there are several results that are not very statistically significant but all go in the same direction, that may constitute a statistically valid finding, but that's apparently not in their mandate.) The report follows a strict format, which makes it very difficult to keep the three studies clear in one's mind. They end up concluding almost nothing. I don't know whether I should bother going to the dentist anymore!

A more serious case I heard about a few years ago. Cochrane and the British Medical Journal came out with a claim that there was no good reason to stockpile Tamiflu in case of a flu epidemic. This is a case where many lives may depend on how nitpicky we choose to be. The Cochrane analysis excluded 15 out of 20 studies just because cases of pneumonia were self reported. The remaining studies were not powerful enough to prove that Tamiflu saves lives (which they couldn’t do anyway because they did not involve “severe viral pneumonia”). A study in 2013 found that it did save about half the people who would otherwise have died. But the study was not a randomized placebo-controlled experiment, so the Cochrane people wouldn't consider it worthy.

It could well be that Tamiflu would save thousands of lives in a pandemic, but that we won’t have Tamiflu because the studies showing its effectiveness did not meet the strictest criteria of perfection.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, but this is not a forum for discussion of the organization. Is there some content you would like to add or change in this article? Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideas to improve this page
There is presently a notice posted on this page flagging that it has multiple issues. Here is a list of references that are presently used that rely on sources directly associated with Cochrane.

Citation #s: 1,2,3,4,13,17,18,36,37.

My COI with Cochrane is indicated here, I work directly on the Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership.

Here is a list of suggestions for changes/replacements.

1,2,3 (cochrane.org)- replace with http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0&regid=1045921

4 (cochrane.org)- Replace with http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0&regid=1045921

Remove sentence: Cochrane has more than 37,000 volunteers in more than 130 countries.[3]

13 (cochrane.org)- Replace with Alan Cassels: The Cochrane Collaboration: Medicine's Best-Kept Secret (Agio Publishing House, 2015).

Change this paragraph to: "The Cochrane center was established in the UK, to facilitate systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials across all areas of health care." Presently says, "Funds were provided to establish a "Cochrane Centre", to collaborate with others, in the UK and elsewhere, to facilitate systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials across all areas of health care."

17,18 (cochrane.org)- Replace with Alan Cassels: The Cochrane Collaboration: Medicine's Best-Kept Secret (Agio Publishing House, 2015) and Dear Health Minister – please reinstate funding for Cochrane Canada", Alan Cassels, Policy Options, 4 Nov 2015.  http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2015/11/04/dear-health-minister-please-reinstate-funding-for-cochrane-canada/

36- replace with http://www.who.int/about/collaborations/non-state-actors/in-official-relations/en/

37- replace with http://www.who.int/about/collaborations/non-state-actors/in-official-relations/en/ for both uses of 37.

Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * replaced #37(will look at the other refs as well)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Ozzie10aaaa for replacing ref # 37. Does anyone else have any suggestions for improving this page? I do not feel comfortable editing this page myself due to my COI (I work directly on the Cochrane-Wikipedia Initiative). JenOttawa (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Page clean-up: Showing my self revert
Hello, I made some suggestions in order to clean up the page, removed in-appropriate references + content, removed WP:SPS references, and make it look less like an advertisement by removing content. I have demonstrated these changes using a "showing my self-revert" on the page (see article edit history). I edited the actual article, then immediately reversed my edit. If anyone has a chance could you please review my suggestions? If these suggestions are taken, there will just be a few more sections to clean up.
 * 1) There are still two references to the Cochrane.org website in the infobox. I am not certain what to do here. Should these be removed to bring it up to WP standards for organizations, or is it ok to have these in the infobox?
 * 2) The "logo" section. I am not sure what to do with this. Should it be removed, for now, to bring the page up to WP standards (non SPS)? I see from the talk page that quite a few editors worked hard on this and collaborated to write this section. There are a couple of external sources, but also two cochrane sites are used right now.

Many people in this community have already been extremely helpful with this.

Once this article meets WP standards, what is the next step to having the warnings removed?

Thank you again! Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * this was a bunch of self-published stuff. not ok. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New content added to the article
Hello, I am Sylvia de Haan. It is not right for me to edit this page as I work for Cochrane and thus have a conflict of interest. I have noticed that recent edits in this article are not a neutral reflection of events at Cochrane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation)#Crisis_2018 I am writing to ask for suggestions as to how to present the information in a neutral manner as per Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you! Sylvia de Haan (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * yes that was very bad Wikipedia content. Replaced it with better here. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)