  Systematic reviews of interventions are important tools for synthesizing
evidence from multiple studies. They serve to increase power and improve
precision, in the same way that larger studies can do, but also to establish
the consistency of effects and replicability of results across studies which
are not identical. In this work we suggest to incorporate replicability
analysis tools to quantify the consistency and conflict. These are offered both
for the fixed-effect and for the random-effects meta-analyses. We motivate and
demonstrate our approach and its implications by examples from systematic
reviews from the Cochrane library, and offer a way to incorporate our
suggestions in their standard reporting system.
