Background: Although Cochrane systematic reviews are considered the highest level of evidence for decisions in therapy, they are often criticized for giving no final straightforward clinical recommendation. Approximately 50% of all Cochrane Reviews reach the conclusion that there is a lack of evidence to make clinical recommendations for treatment or prevention of diseases and more research is needed. Cochrane Review authors know exactly what are the strong points and limitations of the existing trials related to their review question. As such, Cochrane authors are in a privileged position to write the ‘ideal’ protocols for future trials, with the relevant methodological details to ensure a high quality study and thus contribute to the advancement of evidence-based health care.

Objectives: We present a proposal for improving the section ‘Implications for Research’ of Cochrane Reviews.

Results: The proposal would be at the end of every Cochrane Review that recommended the need for more studies. Review authors would include a brief description of the study that needs to be carried out in the future, to help answer the clinical question that remained unanswered. We suggest using the CONSORT checklist for Abstracts (Hopewell 2008). The use of a simple and easy to fill template model (Table 1) would help review authors to provide all the necessary details essential for the design and conduct of future high quality trials.

Conclusions: The possible benefits of improving the Implications for Research section of Cochrane Reviews are many fold: (a) improve evidence-based health care; (b) stimulate investigators to pursue relevant research questions; (c) ensure the production of high quality protocols; (d) Cochrane Review authors could be commissioned as consultants to draft high quality protocols; (e) enhance and promote the role of the Cochrane Collaboration as an important partner in the creation and development of high quality primary studies.