Last time they seem to have got the university of york to do a literature review which looks at a lot of papers in a very trivial way. I.e. tabulates things claimed in the papers. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11630/34188/34188.pdf I've only had a quick glance but I think there is a big issue with this style of review since drug papers are far more honest in reporting than those produced by the psychiatrists who spin their results and miss out data. Since the reviewers don't read critically then the basis of the review is poor.