In The Review Trish Greenhalgh1 refers back to the halcyon days of editorials and opinion pieces in medical journals that relied on an author’s bias, speculation, and conjecture that passed for academic debate in the mid-1980s. She decries Cochrane reviews as narrow, boring articles that seldom answer the ‘messy context’ of clinical practice. Sorry, but we don’t agree. Using narrative reviews that do not systematically identify, assess, and synthesise information produces evidence that is biased, misleading, and may harm patients.2
Surely informed clinical practice means telling our patients about what we know is effective, what we …