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• Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews • Inconclusive or lack of recommendations • Grey literature excluded • Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect)
Number of systematic reviews included	552
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 Topics can become available again when entries are withdrawn, but withdrawal is a relatively rare occurrence with withdrawal rates differing among Cochrane Review Groups. 44% of included reviews determined that they had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.
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?	Yes