The role and limitations of Cochrane reviews at the bedside: a systematic synopsis of five pediatric subspecialties

Cochrane meta-analyses provide the physician at the bedside with the most relevant, up-to-date clinical information. However, implementation of evidence-based medicine (EBM) at the bedside may be difficult for a variety of reasons. The aim of this study was to assess relevant issues and obstacles related to implementing EBM in pediatrics in real life at the bedside/cotside.

We performed five systematic literature reviews of all published Cochrane reviews in neonatology (1996–2010), pediatric neurology (1996–2010), pediatric gastroenterology (1993–2012), pediatric cardiology (2001–2015), and complementary and alternative medicine (1996–2012; CAM) in children and neonates. In all five analyses, the main outcome variables were percentage of reviews concluding that a certain intervention provides a benefit, percentage of reviews concluding that a certain intervention should not be performed, and percentage of studies concluding that the current level of evidence is inconclusive.

In all five areas of pediatrics, a substantial number of Cochrane reviews yielded inconclusive data (neonatology: 46.6%; neuropediatrics: 26.8%; pediatric gastroenterology: 27.9%; pediatric cardiology: 42.9%; complementary and alternative medicine: 66.9%).

Our up-dated systematic synopsis reiterates the need for high-quality, sophisticated research to reduce the number of inconclusive meta-analyses in the field of pediatrics—most importantly in the field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), neonatology, and pediatric cardiology. The realization of high-quality, clinically driven research will in turn yield more systematic reviews with a clear conclusion (e. g., in favor or against a certain intervention, or treatment modality), thus, substantively decreasing the proportion of inconclusive reviews.