What is the point of databases of reviews for dermatology if all they compile is “insufficient evidence”?

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.…”

The Cochrane Skin Group: Promoting the Best Evidence

“…11 This is probably due to the assumption that better evidence is not available, which has promoted the continued use of therapies based on evidence found in uncontrolled trials and non-systematically conducted traditional or narrative reviews. 11 In reality, dermatology is no worse off in its yield of randomized controlled trials than other specialties, but there is still a need to identify gaps in knowledge. 2 The CSG helps identify and promote research on dermatologic interventions by starting with questions that are important from a ,consumerÕ perspective rather than limiting its interest to areas in which many trials have been conducted.…”

“…11 There are still many important topics that have yet to be covered and additional reviews are needed. Parker et al 11 drew attention to the fact that, of the 40 skin disease review database entries, their search uncovered some of the most common diagnoses in dermatology that remain conspicuously absent.…”

“…11 There are still many important topics that have yet to be covered and additional reviews are needed. Parker et al 11 drew attention to the fact that, of the 40 skin disease review database entries, their search uncovered some of the most common diagnoses in dermatology that remain conspicuously absent. 11 The CSG is addressing this issue by identifying questions needing urgent attention, but it is still limited by the goodwill of volunteers to undertake priority reviews that have been identified.…”

“…Parker et al 11 drew attention to the fact that, of the 40 skin disease review database entries, their search uncovered some of the most common diagnoses in dermatology that remain conspicuously absent. 11 The CSG is addressing this issue by identifying questions needing urgent attention, but it is still limited by the goodwill of volunteers to undertake priority reviews that have been identified. While the exclusion of all trials that are not RCTs may on the one hand help to ensure quality reviews, this policy may also be seen as a limitation in some settings.…”