Role of Cochrane Reviews in Pediatric Neurology

Clinical recommendations of Cochrane reviews in pediatric gastroenterology: Systematic analysis

“…Conversely, in the present study a substantial proportion of reviews were inconclusive (24/86) or only partially conclusive (29/86) – most often related to inadequate “study conditions”. This is in line with previous reports on this subject . The main reasons for not providing any specific recommendations were the small number of patients, insufficient data and heterogeneity.…”

“…low-and middle-income countries vs highly industrialized countries). In line with previous reports, 17,18,23 the majority of reviews was published in Western, industrialized countries with high medical standards, where many recommendations can be put into practice, whereas the implementation will be more difficult in low-and middle-income countries, thus potentially excluding the majority of children being cared for in the developing world. Recent efforts (through initiatives such as the Effective Health Care Alliance and the Sea-orchid consortium), however, have been made to disseminate knowledge from the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to low-and middleincome countries to ensure that care practices are evidence based and that scarce resources will be used and allocated appropriately.…”

“…In the present study we noted a positive – albeit non‐significant – association between updated Cochrane reviews and conclusiveness. In accordance with these results, this trend has also been demonstrated in other fields of pediatrics (pediatric and neonatal surgery) . Thus, it is of paramount importance to keep the reviews as much up to date as possible, given that reviews with clear recommendations for or against a certain intervention are most beneficial to clinicians.…”

“…In accordance with these results, this trend has also been demonstrated in other fields of pediatrics (pediatric and neonatal surgery). 17,18 Thus, it is of paramount importance to keep the reviews as much up to date as possible, given that reviews with clear recommendations for or against a certain intervention are most beneficial to clinicians. Contrary to other reports, however, that have demonstrated a decreasing or unchanged number of published Cochrane reviews over time, 17,18 in the present study an increasing number of published Cochrane reviews was noted over time.…”

“…This is in line with previous reports on this subject. 17,18 The main reasons for not providing any specific recommendations were the small number of patients, insufficient data and heterogeneity. It is noteworthy, however, that previous systematic reviews of Cochrane reviews have shown that inappropriate claims of no effect or no difference may occur in approximately 20% of abstracts of Cochrane reviews.…”