Talk:Cochrane Collaboration

Rationale for the article

There is one thing possibly wrong with this entry, The Cochrane Collaboration is a portal to subscription only databases. The abstracts can be viewed for free and there is a feedback process for the reviews available to the public. However, it is not unlike PubMed wherein most references are available in full by subscription or pay-per-article. While we assiduously try to avoid promoting commercial efforts, the bottom line is that most research is in some ways only available for a price, though often through nonprofit sources. It is also true that the Cochrane Library Databases have become one of the largest of the highest quality databases for research in medicine. With these factors in mind, it is simply not possible to pretend it is not there but to present this effort as objectively as possible. Thomas Simmons 04:10 9 April, 2007 (EPT)

Review and EBM Guidelines

EBM guidelines are presented here from a free-access, highly reputable, international source rather than the Chochrane Collaboration specifically because the Cochrane Library, while not-for-profit, does not make their work available - they let it out through distributors here. Cochrane Inside, Wiley and Sons here "promotes, sells and distributes the English language version of EBM Guidelines on behalf of Duodecim worldwide" Meanwhile, taxpayers in the USA have graciously allowed us to read a much larger database by reputable sources on a vast array of topics. Thomas Simmons 13:04, 9 April, 2007 (EPT)

I am not seeing the benefit from the Evidence based medicine and guidelines section. Ok to delete these? - Robert Badgett 02:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The section that explains the entire rationale for the Cochrane Collection and how it is verified is of no benefit? Did I read that correctly? If so, deletion would gut the premise of the article which is to present the topic in a coherent manner. Thomas Simmons 00:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)