Talk:Cochrane (organisation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Cochrane Collaboration)
Jump to: navigation, search

New logo and branding of Cochrane[edit]

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 : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsoumyadeepb (talkcontribs) 03:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll do some of these edits amosabo t@lk; 19:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
@Amosabo: 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[edit]

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 [1]


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 (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. (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[edit]

Could easily be a subsection of this page. II | (t - c) 05:56, 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.[edit]

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)


The UK Cochrane Centre is widely cited by third-party secondary sources [1] [2] [3] new and old [4] [5], 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. [6]

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

--Amosabo (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Amosabo 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[edit]

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

Secondary sources readily available via 'Cochrane in the News' archive[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cochrane (organisation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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


Anybody know or interested in the citation for the systematic review on which the logo is based? I found: (1990) - available through 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 ( 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)#Logo in an attempt to clarify it a bit — see diff. Feel free to improve it further! Qwfp (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Too many citations to self-published sources[edit]

Jytdog 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)

Cochrane groups[edit]

Jytdog 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)

Complaints about Cochrane reviews[edit]

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 ([2]). 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 ([3]). 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 ([4]). 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)