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
Grey literature
Mental health
Currency
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Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect)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 522
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 Topics can become available again when entries are withdrawn, but withdrawal is a relatively rare occurrence with withdrawal rates differing among Cochrane Review Groups. 44% of included reviews determined that they had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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes