|DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
|Year Of Publishing
Lack of clinical expert/ stakeholder/ user perspective
Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
Inflexible methods to complex questions
Overly stringent inclusion criteria affecting external validity
Unwieldy/ difficult to read
|Number of systematic reviews included
|Summary of Findings
|The authors concluded that the 87 Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews contained six empty reviews which found no eligible randomised trials and six found one trial, precluding a systematic review; with some empty reviews investigating irrelevant topics. Twenty-one reviews investigated outdated interventions, and thirteen of them were posted ten or more years after the publication of the most recent trial included. Most reviews were too lengthy (median: 40 pages) and their consultation was time-consuming with respect to clinical content. They generally compared two treatments, disregarding other options, and usually did not report any non-randomised (although convincing) evidence of potential use in clinical decision-making.
|Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?