Carl T. BergstromMar 11, 2023

Cochrane Reviews has issued an editor's statement about the mask-wearing paper that has been getting so much attention lately.

Below, the statement, in which they both endeavor to clarify the implications of the study and take responsibility for the poor initial job of public communication.

https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review

Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' review

Show threadCarl T. BergstromMar 11, 2023

This sort of post-publication clarification is a valuable service, and indeed it's not the first time that such as has been necessary for a paper about the efficacy of masks.

A 2020 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine was so frequently misrepresented by anti-mask commentators that it now carries the following editor's note prominently at the top of the article webpage.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp2006372

Show threadCarl T. Bergstrom

One place where Cochrane can improve is to follow The New England Journal's lead and prominently link the editor's statement to the article webpage.

At present, there is no mention of the statement on that page. Hopefully this is a temporary oversight that will be quickly remedied.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

Mar 11, 2023 at 6:34amWeb
Show threadStan YoshinobuMar 11, 2023
@ct_bergstrom It feels like they are closing the barn door after the horse ran out. Lots of folks have the misconception now, and it’s causing more harm that should have been avoided. To undo the misconception will take a lot more effort than posting an errata.