TY - JOUR T1 - Cochrane reviews: relevant more than ever JF - British Journal of General Practice JO - Br J Gen Pract SP - 10 LP - 10 DO - 10.3399/bjgp13X660643 VL - 63 IS - 606 AU - Tom Fahey AU - Susan M Smith AU - Floris van de Laar AU - Tim Kenealy AU - Bruce Arroll Y1 - 2013/01/01 UR - http://bjgp.org/content/63/606/10.1.abstract N2 - 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.2Surely informed clinical practice means telling our patients about what we know is effective, what we … ER -