1434757
doi
10.5281/zenodo.1434757
oai:zenodo.org:1434757
Tinari, Serena
Re-Check
Spinosa, Jean-Pierre
Université de Lausanne
Lippman, Abby
McGill University
Rail, Geneviève
Concordia University
Arya, Neil
University of Waterloo, McMaster University
Spring, Lyba
Taillefer, Anne
Biron, Pierre
Université de Montréal
Turcotte, Fernand
Université Laval
Email correspondence with Cochrane (2012-2018)
Riva, Catherine
Re-Check
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
<p><strong>Emails sent between 2012 and 2018 to the Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology & Orphan Cancer Group (CGNOCG)</strong>, senior editor of the HPV vaccines Cochrane review, to Cochrane Editor in Chief David Tovey and to CGNOCG coordinating Editor Jo Morrison to point at methodological and ethical flaws in the Cochrane HPV vaccines review protocol, in the revised protocol, in the original and reconstituted authors panel, on the published review, and to ask when our June 4<sup>th</sup> 2018 analysis would be finally published, to insist tables should be made public, and to reiterate our request to receive a feedback from the review authors.<br>
This email collection includes the exchange of February 2015 about the Cochrane HPV vaccines review’ leading author having presented intermediary review results at a congress, although we were informed in December 2014 that the review work hadn’t even started. Cochrane replied: “(..) The protocol was originally published a number of years ago now so it is inevitable that the authors would have commenced work on some, but not all, aspects of the review. We were unaware that the authors had presented preliminary findings of their review. Whilst it is not uncommon for researchers on Cochrane Reviews to present interim findings from their work prior to publication, this is not something which we are in a position to stop or approve. As such so we cannot comment on the presentation of preliminary results of the systematic review by the authors”.<br>
When the emails were sent with attachment, the attachment’s content is presented.<br>
Where needed, explanatory notes were added.</p>
Zenodo
2012-12-10
info:eu-repo/semantics/other
1434756
1579532573.912073
549252
md5:23d52d407493f272b3019d8a6cdf6529
https://zenodo.org/records/1434757/files/2017_Cochrane-mails.pdf
788416
md5:760c1e2464ac0f4ffc76b7e6f0a42825
https://zenodo.org/records/1434757/files/2018_Cochrane-mails.pdf
560748
md5:861f9daa91f091bfe1a791a4e5e3d7f9
https://zenodo.org/records/1434757/files/2014-2015_Cochrane-mails.pdf
391842
md5:d955bce363668fe06c39a285dc3ac5e4
https://zenodo.org/records/1434757/files/2012-2013_Cochrane-mails.pdf
public
10.5281/zenodo.1434756
isVersionOf
doi