Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook and the Style Guidelines for Cochrane Reviews include guidance to reviewers on the reporting of the search for studies, the format of study identifiers, and the format of references.
Objectives: To compare the reporting of the search for studies, the format of study identifiers, and the format of references in new reviews published in issue 3 2001 with new reviews published in issue 2 2002.
Methods: Using a descriptive analysis approach, the following components of all new reviews in issue 3 2001 were assessed against the guidance to reviewers in the Handbook and Style Guide: reporting of the search for studies (abstract and text of review), the format of study identifiers, and the format of references. Feedback on individual reviews was passed to the relevant review group, with overall findings disseminated to all review groups. This exercise will be repeated for new reviews published in issue 2 2002.
Results: 66 new reviews from 34 review groups were published in issue 3 2001. In reporting the search for studies, 30 reviews (45%) failed to provide any mention in the abstract of the date when the searches were conducted. Approximately half the reviews listed the search terms used in the various databases, and a quarter provided at least one full search strategy. The remaining reviews did not list any search terms. The majority of reviews (75%) used the recommended format for constructing the study and reference identifiers. Half the reviews used the full journal name in the references, but in nearly a third of reviews (30%) there was a mix of both full and abbreviated journal names. Use of the symbol to denote the major publication for an included study was applied inconsistently.
Conclusions: The first stage of this exercise showed several areas where the consistency of reviews could be improved, and highlighted deficiencies and/or confusion in the current guidance to reviewers. Some of these issues are now being addressed. The second stage will reveal the extent to which review groups have adopted the feedback and improved these aspects of review quality.
Objectives: To compare the reporting of the search for studies, the format of study identifiers, and the format of references in new reviews published in issue 3 2001 with new reviews published in issue 2 2002.
Methods: Using a descriptive analysis approach, the following components of all new reviews in issue 3 2001 were assessed against the guidance to reviewers in the Handbook and Style Guide: reporting of the search for studies (abstract and text of review), the format of study identifiers, and the format of references. Feedback on individual reviews was passed to the relevant review group, with overall findings disseminated to all review groups. This exercise will be repeated for new reviews published in issue 2 2002.
Results: 66 new reviews from 34 review groups were published in issue 3 2001. In reporting the search for studies, 30 reviews (45%) failed to provide any mention in the abstract of the date when the searches were conducted. Approximately half the reviews listed the search terms used in the various databases, and a quarter provided at least one full search strategy. The remaining reviews did not list any search terms. The majority of reviews (75%) used the recommended format for constructing the study and reference identifiers. Half the reviews used the full journal name in the references, but in nearly a third of reviews (30%) there was a mix of both full and abbreviated journal names. Use of the symbol to denote the major publication for an included study was applied inconsistently.
Conclusions: The first stage of this exercise showed several areas where the consistency of reviews could be improved, and highlighted deficiencies and/or confusion in the current guidance to reviewers. Some of these issues are now being addressed. The second stage will reveal the extent to which review groups have adopted the feedback and improved these aspects of review quality.