I really disagree with this and there is ample evidence that science is not "self-correcting". Read Retraction Watch. I personally wrote to a journal on 3 occassions and phoned them twice to alert them to an error in a paper that the authors were reluctant to own up to and correct. I had inside knowledge and was able to provide the evidence of the error. Journal did nothing, they passed the message on to a range of sub editors (which were a revolving door), no investigation, no response. Google the "reproduciblity crisis" including the coverage of the issue in Nature to see how uncorrecting medical science can be.

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.

I fully understand that various articles, even peer-reviewed ones, can be bogus, and some reviews can be bogus too when they demonstrate an unfair bias in selecting articles. Journal managers too can be altogether apathetic. Even so, it has been my experience that reviews over the long term converge to the truth.

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.

That is a fair distinction.

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.