Why are Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews undervalued by physicians as an aid for clinical decision-making?

Ref ID	228
First Author	L. Pagliaro
Journal	DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Year Of Publishing	2010
URL	https://www.dldjournalonline.com/article/S1590-8658(09)00294-1/pdf
Keywords	• Cochrane • External validity • Gastroenterology • Stakeholder • Expertise • Overlapping reviews/redundancy
Problem(s)	• 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 • Lack of clinical expert/ stakeholder/ user perspective
Number of systematic reviews included	87
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 Twenty-one reviews investigated outdated interventions, and thirteen of them were posted ten or more years after the publication of the most recent trial included.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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	No