| Ref ID | 228 |
| First Author | L. Pagliaro |
| Journal | DIGESTIVE & 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Italy |
| Aim | To assess whether the characteristics of the Cochrane hepato-biliary systematic reviews can account for their apparent scant use by physicians. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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 Twenty-one reviews investigated outdated interventions, and thirteen of them were posted ten or more years after the publication of the most recent trial included.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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 87 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 87 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |