Background: Cochrane systematic reviews are intended to be part of the documentation that is evaluated prior to making a policy decision on how to improve local health services. Policy makers need to know if the intervention is effective relative to alternatives. Descriptions of the intervention need to be sufficiently detailed to evaluate if it is relevant and feasible to implement in a local setting. When reading an Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) review, is there sufficient information to decide if it is relevant and feasible to implement the intervention that was reviewed in Norwayás local setting?

Methods: All the new reviews and updated reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews by the EPOC-group from January 2010 to January 2011 were examined. The information on the effect, the relevance, and the feasibility of the intervention were first considered by examining the title of the review, then the abstract. If it was still deemed to be potentially relevant and feasible, then full review was read.

Results: Of the 28 reviews that were indentified, two reviews were specific to low and middle income countries and two reviews had no included studies. Sixteen reviews did not draw a conclusion for various reasons. Of the eight reviews reporting an effect of the intervention, none gave sufficient information that permitted me to think that the intervention could be implemented in a local setting in Norway. Discussion: The potential global applicability of Cochrane reviews is one of the positive aspects of Cochrane systematic reviews. EPOC reviews have special challenges because of the large variation in national organizations of health care, and the relatively larger impact of setting. Systematic reviews must include more information about the interventions and the settings to make it possible to consider implementation at local levels.