Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Cochrane reviews are intended to be updated periodi-cally, generally every two years. The Cochrane Handbook requires that reports of updates help readers to quickly and clearly identify the changes.
Objectives: To assess the quality of update reporting and map the updating history of Cochrane reviews flagged as updated in 2003.
Methods: Publication and updating histories of a cohort of reviews with update flags in 2003 (reported on at the Barcelona Colloquium) were compiled from The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2011) and Pub Med. Analyses were done of the time to each update.
Results: Of 177 Cochrane reviews with update flags in 2003, 40 have been updated only once (23%). Seven (4%) have been determined to have stable evidence. If a review is assumed to be out-of-date after two years, only three (1.7%) of the reviews have been up-to-date ever since their original publication, and one of these was withdrawn in 2005. Based on an updating interval of two years, the 177 reviews were out of date for 45% of their publication lives. If the interval was three years, the reviews were out of date for 28% of their lives; or 15% if the interval was four years. The median time to an update was between two and three years. A minority of the reviews reported all searches (33%) or whether additional studies were included (39%) in each update in their 'What’s new’, history or notes section.
Conclusions: Even among Cochrane reviews that had been updated at least once, most are not updated within two years or provide information in accordance with the recommendations in the Cochrane Handbook. The quality of reporting of the updating is poor.
Objectives: To assess the quality of update reporting and map the updating history of Cochrane reviews flagged as updated in 2003.
Methods: Publication and updating histories of a cohort of reviews with update flags in 2003 (reported on at the Barcelona Colloquium) were compiled from The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2011) and Pub Med. Analyses were done of the time to each update.
Results: Of 177 Cochrane reviews with update flags in 2003, 40 have been updated only once (23%). Seven (4%) have been determined to have stable evidence. If a review is assumed to be out-of-date after two years, only three (1.7%) of the reviews have been up-to-date ever since their original publication, and one of these was withdrawn in 2005. Based on an updating interval of two years, the 177 reviews were out of date for 45% of their publication lives. If the interval was three years, the reviews were out of date for 28% of their lives; or 15% if the interval was four years. The median time to an update was between two and three years. A minority of the reviews reported all searches (33%) or whether additional studies were included (39%) in each update in their 'What’s new’, history or notes section.
Conclusions: Even among Cochrane reviews that had been updated at least once, most are not updated within two years or provide information in accordance with the recommendations in the Cochrane Handbook. The quality of reporting of the updating is poor.