Regarding Cochrane. It is reliable if is says a treatment does work, or an exposure has an effect, sometimes they miss effects because they only rely on particular sources of evidence e.g. RCTs, they were wrong on effectiveness of masks. As an example of reasonably up to date and evidence based free review sources on line - see Stat Pearls.
As for individual studies, if a study is important, it often gets tested by others, although sometimes it doesn't, and then it's a decision-theoretic play.
Cochrane in my estimation examines things from very narrow angles, and this can miss wide-ranging applicability to the real world.
My default right now is Clinical Safety. I prioritize high-grade evidence to prevent harm at the bedside.
However, for Research/Discovery, you are absolutely right. Excessive 'Gatekeeping' can slow down innovation.
The long-term fix is likely a 'Filter Dial'. We need tight constraints for treatment decisions, but loose constraints for hypothesis generation. I plan to support both modes.