Usefulness of Cochrane Skin Group Reviews for Clinical Practice

The Cochrane Skin Group: a vanguard for developing and promoting evidence‐based dermatology

“…Consistent with Parker et al, a study published in 2013 by Davila‐Seijo, Batalla, and Garcia‐Doval found that ‘most of the systematic reviews published by the CSG provide useful information to improve clinical practice’ . The authors performed a bibliometric analysis of all systematic reviews published by the CSG through August 2012.…”

“…The authors performed a bibliometric analysis of all systematic reviews published by the CSG through August 2012. Their analysis graded 55 CSG reviews into three categories: ‘Not useful in clinical practice: insufficient evidence to support or reject the use of an intervention’, ‘Useful: insufficient evidence to support or reject the use of an intervention, but sufficient evidence to support recommendations or suggestions’, and ‘Very useful: strong evidence to support or reject the use of an intervention’ . They classified 25.5% (14/55) as not useful in clinical practice, 45.5% (25/55) as useful, and 29.1% (16/55) as very useful .…”

“…Their analysis graded 55 CSG reviews into three categories: ‘Not useful in clinical practice: insufficient evidence to support or reject the use of an intervention’, ‘Useful: insufficient evidence to support or reject the use of an intervention, but sufficient evidence to support recommendations or suggestions’, and ‘Very useful: strong evidence to support or reject the use of an intervention’ . They classified 25.5% (14/55) as not useful in clinical practice, 45.5% (25/55) as useful, and 29.1% (16/55) as very useful . Even when studies are not considered useful in clinical practice, when evidence is lacking, ‘Cochrane reviews identify gaps in knowledge and help frame the future research agendas’ .…”

“…Even when studies are not considered useful in clinical practice, when evidence is lacking, ‘Cochrane reviews identify gaps in knowledge and help frame the future research agendas’ . Nevertheless, it appears that the majority of systematic reviews published by the CSG provide useful information in guiding dermatology clinical practice .…”

Bibliometric characteristics of systematic reviews in dermatology: A cross-sectional study through Web of Science and Scopus

“…7 Importantly, >75% of SRs in dermatology provide enough evidence in order to inform clinical decisions, a fact that is in line with previous analyses. 8,9 We found that some diseases such as seborreic dermatitis, skin manifestations of systemic disorders, and urticaria, and some interventions such as immunizations and dietary modifications, were seldom included in SRs, although the vast majority of them are highly prevalent in dermatological practice. It is also possible that there are more dermatological diseases not identified in our search that had never been the subject of SRs.…”