What is a Cochrane review? Cochrane vs non-Cochrane systematic reviews (2026)

What is a Cochrane review?

A Cochrane review is a systematic review of research in health care or health policy that has been published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) after going through Cochrane's own editorial process (Cochrane Library). Publication in the CDSR is what makes it a Cochrane review; using Cochrane's methods isn't enough.

A systematic review answers one focused question by finding, appraising and combining every study that meets criteria set out in advance. Cochrane is an independent, not-for-profit network of researchers, health professionals, patients and others, founded in 1993, that aims to produce evidence free from commercial sponsorship (Cochrane Handbook, chapter I). The CDSR is its journal, published by Wiley in the Cochrane Library; besides reviews, it carries protocols (the plan for a review, written before the work starts), editorials and supplements (About the CDSR).

Cochrane reviews are now a small share of all systematic reviews: in PubMed, they made up 35% of those published from 1993 to 2002, but only 3.5% from 2013 to 2022 (Andersen et al., Systematic Reviews 2024). If you're new to systematic reviews themselves, the guide to doing a systematic review as a medical student covers the method; this page is about the label.

What makes a review a Cochrane review, and what doesn't?

Only one thing makes a review a Cochrane review: Cochrane accepting it for publication in the CDSR after taking it through its own process, from an accepted proposal to a peer-reviewed protocol to a peer-reviewed review. The methods, software and databases Cochrane built or recommends are open to everyone, so using them doesn't make your review a Cochrane review.

Here's how the usual candidates measure up, checked against Cochrane's own documents on 25 October 2026:

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

Cochrane's "Publish with us" page draws the line itself: it sends systematic reviews developed with Cochrane from the idea stage to the CDSR, and other evidence syntheses with a manuscript ready, such as scoping reviews, to Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods (CESM) (Cochrane). CESM is a fully open-access Wiley journal that charged US$3,000 to publish a review article as of October 2026. Its papers reach PubMed through PubMed Central, but it isn't currently indexed for MEDLINE, the US National Library of Medicine's selective journal index (CESM author guidelines; NLM Catalog).

Nor can you turn a finished review into a Cochrane review afterwards. Cochrane doesn't accept completed manuscripts or protocols, apart from the rare commissioned review that meets its mandatory conduct standards and had a prospectively registered protocol (Cochrane).

How is a Cochrane review different from other systematic reviews?

A Cochrane review uses the same core method as any good systematic review, under stricter rules: Cochrane agrees your question first, peer reviews and publishes your protocol, enforces conduct standards, limits authorship over conflicts of interest and expects updates. Other systematic reviews follow their journal's rules.

This is how the two compare, as of October 2026:

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

Is all that process worth it? On methods, the evidence leans yes. In a comparison of 346 Cochrane reviews and 215 high-impact journal reviews on cancer, the Cochrane reviews met more quality criteria, such as a design set in advance, but were cited far less: a mean of 6.52 times against 74.45 (Goldkuhle et al., BMJ Open 2018). The label tells you about the process; you still appraise each review on its own merits.

What types of Cochrane reviews are there?

Cochrane publishes eight types of review: intervention, diagnostic test accuracy, prognosis, qualitative evidence synthesis, methodology, overviews of reviews, rapid reviews and prototype reviews (Cochrane Library). Most are intervention reviews, which focus mainly on randomised trials (Handbook, section I.2.2).

Each type answers a different kind of question and has its own methods guidance (Cochrane):

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

The proposal form, last updated July 2026, adds two planning choices (proposal form):

• A traditional, rapid or living approach: a living review is updated continually as new evidence appears, and you must show you can resource that.
• "Other" types only in exceptional circumstances: worth knowing before you propose a prevalence meta-analysis, a common first project, because Cochrane still lists prevalence reviews as prototypes.

How does a review become a Cochrane review in 2026?

In 2026 a review becomes a Cochrane review in four stages: Cochrane accepts your proposal, your protocol passes peer review and is published in the CDSR, you do the review to that protocol, and the finished review passes a second peer review before a Senior Editor accepts it. Cochrane's Central Editorial Service manages the editorial checks and peer review (Cochrane Library; Cochrane).

If an older guide tells you to register a title with a Cochrane Review Group, it's out of date. Core funding from the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research for UK-based Review Groups ended on 31 March 2023 (Cochrane EPOC), Cochrane began replacing its 52 Review Groups with a new model (Future Cochrane), and since 1 May 2023 every proposal, as titles are now called, has gone through one central Editorial Manager site (Cochrane; Cochrane). In October 2026 Cochrane lists 13 Thematic Groups (topic-based groups that set priorities), 5 Evidence Synthesis Units (multi-topic research groups, one of them in India) and 26 Review Groups (Cochrane groups). Cochrane UK has closed too: its NIHR contract ended in March 2024, and Cochrane couldn't find a new host (Cochrane news, 2023; Cochrane Author Digest, April 2024).

Here's the route, with Cochrane's own deadlines:

1. Check for overlap and priority: Cochrane proceeds only with proposals that don't overlap its existing reviews or protocols, unless justified, and may not prioritise reviews with little completed-trial data and few ongoing studies (proposal form; Cochrane).
2. Build the team: at least two people with topic and methods expertise, all within Cochrane's conflict-of-interest and authorship policies, which editors don't check at this stage, though breaches are likely to get your work rejected later (proposal form).
3. Submit the proposal: the Editorial Manager form asks for your question and PICO (population, intervention, comparison and outcomes), any overlap, the evidence available, including ongoing studies due to finish within 24 months, and whether an information specialist will run your searches. The Evidence Pipeline team screens it for overlap, topic experts discuss it and the Proposal Manager sends the decision (Cochrane). Cochrane doesn't publish how long a decision usually takes.
4. Submit the protocol within 90 days: written in RevMan, up to 6,000 words, with the mandatory pre-submission checklist. Miss the deadline and Cochrane can give the title to another team (after submission; submission checks; proposal form).
5. Get the protocol published: peer-review revisions are due within 14 days if minor and 21 if major, and you start the review only once the protocol is published (Cochrane).
6. Submit the review within 180 to 365 days: follow your protocol and MECIR, stay under 12,000 words and keep your searches less than 12 months old at submission (Cochrane).
7. Get it accepted: revisions are due within 21 days if minor and 30 if major, and after at most two rounds a Senior Editor accepts the review (Cochrane).

Two more numbers keep expectations honest. Cochrane accepted 78% of submitted protocols and 77% of submitted reviews in 2025, so about one in four was turned down (Cochrane). And adding these deadlines to the 25.7-month median from protocol to review, we'd plan on two and a half to three years from proposal to published review (our estimate).

Can a medical student write a Cochrane review?

Yes, as part of a qualified team, but not alone. Cochrane says anyone can submit a proposal, yet it won't publish a review proposed by one person, and it expects the team to combine topic expertise with review methods and statistics (Cochrane; Handbook, section 1.3). For most students, the realistic role is co-author on a team that already has experienced members.

Three more of Cochrane's rules matter for students:

• Experienced company for first-timers: Cochrane encourages first-time authors to work with people who've done Cochrane reviews and to use its training (Handbook, section II.2.1).
• Real authorship: every author must meet all four ICMJE criteria, so screening alone earns an acknowledgement, not a byline (CDSR editorial policies); the hub guide explains who should be an author.
• Conflicts in the right places: students rarely have financial conflicts, but a senior co-author's speaker fees from a company with a stake in the topic can rule them out as first or last author (Cochrane's 2020 policy).

If you want Cochrane experience as a student, these four routes work, roughly from easiest to hardest:

1. Screen on Cochrane Crowd: anyone, without prior experience, can classify health studies after short training, earning 1 to 2 points per record towards Cochrane Membership; 1,000 points in 12 months gets you a year's membership (Cochrane; membership). On your CV, it counts as volunteering.
2. Take a task on Cochrane Engage: Cochrane's volunteer hub, formerly TaskExchange, lists beginner tasks and teams looking for authors (Cochrane Engage; Cochrane Help).
3. Join a review near you: ask faculty who've published Cochrane reviews. In India, Cochrane's Evidence Synthesis Unit is based at AIIMS Rishikesh and works with affiliate centres including AIIMS New Delhi, CMC Vellore and PGIMER Chandigarh; elsewhere, Cochrane has Geographic Groups in more than 50 countries (Cochrane; Cochrane groups).
4. Answer a priority call with an experienced team: Cochrane's calls for author teams welcome early-career researchers and people in low- and middle-income countries, but ask for experience of systematic reviews, ideally Cochrane ones, and authors aren't paid (Cochrane).

In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, the local picture differs, as of October 2026:

• UK: with Cochrane UK closed, Cochrane Engage (route 2) is the simplest way in, through its beginner tasks or by joining an author team (Cochrane Engage).
• Australia: Cochrane Australia, now at cochraneaustralia.org and based at Monash University (Cochrane Australia), lists systematic review workshops, including "Writing a systematic review following Cochrane methods", which gives people with little or no review experience a broad view of the review process; its next dates were still "to be confirmed" (Cochrane Australia training). We found no Australia-specific student program.
• New Zealand: Cochrane New Zealand, set up in 2004, is still based at the University of Auckland (Cochrane New Zealand; contact page). Free national access to the Cochrane Library in New Zealand ended on 30 September 2025, so read full reviews through your university or hospital library (Cochrane New Zealand notice).

Honestly, for most students the better first project is a non-Cochrane review you lead, register on PROSPERO and finish on your own timetable, with a Cochrane review later or alongside as a junior team member. In Stephen Covey's terms, a Cochrane team is interdependent, independent people pooling different skills, and leading your own first review is how you move from dependent to independent. Tau Square Academy isn't affiliated with Cochrane; if you're starting from zero, Tau Square Academy's free Phase 0 (14 short lessons) covers the basics both routes need.

How should you describe your review on a CV, ERAS, Oriel, a college application or a journal submission?

Call it a Cochrane review only if it's published in the CDSR. For anything else, describe what you did, for example "a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 6.5), reported according to PRISMA 2020".

This is the wording we'd use in each situation:

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

Sources: Cochrane Style Manual; RevMan terms, clause 3.4(g); CDSR editorial policies.

On ERAS in the US

On ERAS, the US residency application, a published Cochrane review goes under Journal Articles (peer reviewed) like any other paper, with its PMID, the number PubMed gives each article, in an optional field (MyERAS 2027 user guide, pp. 32 to 33). A published Cochrane protocol has its own PubMed record too, so keep "[Protocol]" in its title. The AAMC's ERAS Integrity Promotion Program investigates allegations of fraudulent applications (p. 11), and an interviewer can check the CDSR in a minute.

On Oriel in the UK

Oriel is the UK-wide portal you use to apply for postgraduate training posts (NHS England). Many specialties use verified self-assessment: you score yourself on the form, upload evidence later, and if the evidence doesn't match, your score is adjusted, with a difference of 10% or more liable to trigger a probity process (NHS England). So claim exactly what your evidence shows, and check three rules first:

• Give the PMID or Web of Science reference: Core Surgical Training wants a copy of the article with its PubMed ID or Web of Science reference, and scores a publication without one at 0 (CST portfolio guidance); IMT wants a screenshot of the PubMed citation plus its link (IMT application scoring).
• Write "in press" only when it's fully accepted: IMT defines in press as fully accepted with no further alterations, needs the publisher's confirmation and scores submitted work at nothing (IMT), and Ophthalmology also needs evidence of final acceptance (Ophthalmology self-assessment). An accepted Cochrane proposal or a protocol still in peer review is work in progress, not in press. None of the UK, Australian or New Zealand scoring guides checked for this guide mentions protocols at all: IMT treats Cochrane reviews like any PubMed-cited paper, and the Australian Orthopaedic Association names "Cochrane Reviews", so count only the finished review.
• Use the specialty's own terms: Ophthalmology calls it an evidence folder, Core Surgical Training and Clinical Radiology a portfolio, and Radiology wants an ORCID citation with a DOI or PMID (Radiology portfolio guidance).

On Australian and New Zealand college applications

Australia and New Zealand have no single system like ERAS or Oriel for specialty training: each college (or, for surgery, each specialty society) runs its own selection, often with a scored CV, and RACS tells applicants to follow each surgical specialty's own regulations (RACS). The evidence each one wants for a paper differs, as of October 2026:

• General Surgery Australia (GSA): the only evidence accepted is a PDF of the published article, which must be published by the closing date; an article online but awaiting peer review doesn't count (GSA 2026 regulations).
• Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA): a PubMed citation and link, or a letter of acceptance; an article accepted pending revisions doesn't count (AOA 21 regulations, 2027 intake).
• RANZCOG (obstetrics and gynaecology): the title, PubMed or Medline reference number and URL (Australian guidelines). In both countries, the paper must be published or "in press", in a PubMed or Medline journal, with you as 1st author or 1st co-author (New Zealand guidelines).
• NZ General Surgery (NZAGS): the publication itself, or an official letter from the editor clearly stating acceptance (NZAGS 2026 regulations).

In a journal submission

In a journal submission, name the guidance in your methods, not the brand in your title: "This review followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 6.5) and is reported according to PRISMA 2020; the protocol is registered in PROSPERO (registration number)".

Is a Cochrane review better for your career than a normal systematic review?

Not in the selection rules we checked. UK Internal Medicine Training scores a first-author Cochrane review the same as any other first-author systematic review in PubMed, India's National Medical Commission counts systematic reviews in indexed journals without singling out Cochrane, and the one Australian or New Zealand selection body we found that names Cochrane reviews, the Australian Orthopaedic Association, scores them like any other review. So a Cochrane review mostly buys you methods credibility and training, at a cost in time and control.

The rule-books say this, as of October 2026:

• UK Internal Medicine Training (IMT): its glossary counts systematic reviews and meta-analyses as original research, it accepts Cochrane reviews as equivalent to a PubMed reference, and first, joint-first or corresponding authorship of PubMed-cited original research earns the top 6 publication points (IMT application scoring).
• India's National Medical Commission (NMC): the 2025 faculty regulations count original papers, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and case series in journals indexed in databases such as Medline, PubMed Central, Scopus or DOAJ, and don't mention Cochrane (NMC, Reg. 2(1)(j), notified 30 June 2025).
• UK Ophthalmology ST1: publications must be peer-reviewed original research or high-quality systematic reviews, cited in PubMed, in a journal with a current Clarivate Impact Factor; first or joint-first authorship earns 3 points, up to 6, and on a paper with more than eight authors only the first author scores (Ophthalmology self-assessment, 2027). The CDSR has an impact factor, 9.4 for 2024 (About the CDSR), so a Cochrane review clears that bar, as do many other journals.
• Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA 21, 2027 intake): "Literature reviews, systematic analyses and Cochrane Reviews are eligible for points", at 3 points per first-author article and 1 as a later author, in a journal with an impact factor of at least 1. The CV is a hurdle, with a minimum of 6 points to progress, not part of the final ranking (AOA 21 regulations).
• Other Australian and New Zealand selection bodies: General Surgery Australia and NZ General Surgery score a "peer reviewed journal article", and RANZCOG a publication "on any medical topic", without naming review types. The topic can matter more than the label: GSA doesn't score general medicine or health publications at all, and NZ General Surgery scores only articles "of a surgical nature" (GSA; NZAGS; RANZCOG).

The real trade-off is everything around the points:

Scroll the table sideways to see every column →

Our rule of thumb, not a published standard: if your applications are less than about three years away, lead a non-Cochrane review now and join a Cochrane team on the side if one will have you. If you're early in medical school, with a Cochrane-experienced mentor and time to learn, a Cochrane review is worth the wait. If your applications are close, the guide to starting research in your final year shows how to fit a review into about five months. For what counts where, see the "what counts" section of the publishing guide. Either way, the core methods and tools are the same. At Tau Square Academy, students write non-Cochrane systematic reviews for regular peer-reviewed journals, using the same methods, with the analysis in both RevMan and R.

Frequently asked questions