Cochrane systematic reviews for the mental health field: is the gold standard tarnished?

Ref ID 290
First Author S. Green-Hennessy
Journal PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES
Year Of Publishing 2013
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23117176/
Keywords • Cochrane
• Mental health
• Currency
• Grey literature
Problem(s) • Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews
• Inconclusive or lack of recommendations
• Grey literature excluded
• Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect)
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country United States
Aim To assess completion of all protocol and review entries from the three mental health review groups in the 2005–March 2012 Cochrane database.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings 26% of Cochrane mental health protocols had not been converted to a review five or more years after publication. As a result, some review topics remain undeveloped because an author group has laid a claim to the topic in a prior protocol. Topics can become available again when entries are withdrawn, but withdrawal is a relatively rare occurrence with withdrawal rates differing among Cochrane Review Groups. 44% of included reviews determined that they had insufficient evidence to form any conclusion, even a mixed one. The reviews excluded over twice as many studies as they included, and inclusion of grey literature was infrequent.
Number of systematic reviews included 552
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 552
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description