English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To the Editor: It is common cause that the Naude/Stellenbosch University/University of Cape Town meta-analysis[1] played a decisive role in the multimillion rand prosecution of Prof. T Noakes by the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), which has now been ongoing for more than 3 years. The complainant, Claire Julsing- Strydom, referred to the importance of a meta-analysis generally and/or the Naude et al.[1]  meta-analysis specifically on 12 separate occasions during her testimony. On 24 November 2015, under oath, she said of the Naude et al.[1] publication: ‘So before any media statements could be made we had to get that information and all these associations were waiting on that. It is not like the way you are saying it, it is not like everybody joined together to now make a statement against Prof. Noakes. We were all waiting for the evidence to be published.’ Another prosecution witness, Prof. H Vorster, referred to the Naude et al.[1] meta-analysis five times and quoted from it verbatim once. A third prosecution witness, Prof. A Dhansay, referenced the meta-analysis twice, using the term ‘Cochrane’ to ensure that it was afforded the appropriate esteem. Without the ‘correct conclusion’ from this meta-analysis, it is possible that the HPCSA trial against Noakes might never have happened. Therefore, the importance of the Naude et al.[1] meta-analysis extends far beyond any role purely as a neutral scientific publication.

Naude et al. avoid answering the essential question: Mistake or mischief?