Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: According to the Cochrane Handbook, a ‘stable’ review is ‘one that is highly likely to maintain its current relevance for the foreseeable future’.
Objectives: To identify and describe categories for stable Cochrane reviews (CR) in the Handbook, Cochrane review group (CRG) editorial modules and CRs in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), as well as their numbers by category and CRG.
Methods: Stable reviews were identified in the March 2012 Issue of CDSR. Guidance was extracted from the Handbook and CRG editorial modules, plus data on CRG for each stable review. Data were extracted from the ‘what’s new’ section. When reasons were not clearly reported there, the abstract, discussion and conclusions sections were searched. Both authors agreed on categories. Differences in assignment to categories were resolved by discussion.
Results: Little guidance is provided on the use of the stable category. There were 126 stable reviews among 4765 ‘non-withdrawn’ CRs in the CDSR (2.6%). Only 44% of CRGs have classified any review as stable, with 60% of cases occurring in four CRGs. The largest number of stable CRs in a single CRG was 32 (25% of the total). A total of 14 reviews gave no reason for the categorizing reviews as stable (11%). It was common for no reason to be given in the ‘What’s new’ section. We identified six reasons declaring a review stable (see Table 1), with the most common category being a belief that future trials were unlikely (40% of 112).
Conclusions: The use of the stable category is determined on a case-by-case basis, with highly variable practice among CRGs. Stable reviews are mostly concentrated in a handful of CRGs, and reasons for the decision are often poorly reported.
Objectives: To identify and describe categories for stable Cochrane reviews (CR) in the Handbook, Cochrane review group (CRG) editorial modules and CRs in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), as well as their numbers by category and CRG.
Methods: Stable reviews were identified in the March 2012 Issue of CDSR. Guidance was extracted from the Handbook and CRG editorial modules, plus data on CRG for each stable review. Data were extracted from the ‘what’s new’ section. When reasons were not clearly reported there, the abstract, discussion and conclusions sections were searched. Both authors agreed on categories. Differences in assignment to categories were resolved by discussion.
Results: Little guidance is provided on the use of the stable category. There were 126 stable reviews among 4765 ‘non-withdrawn’ CRs in the CDSR (2.6%). Only 44% of CRGs have classified any review as stable, with 60% of cases occurring in four CRGs. The largest number of stable CRs in a single CRG was 32 (25% of the total). A total of 14 reviews gave no reason for the categorizing reviews as stable (11%). It was common for no reason to be given in the ‘What’s new’ section. We identified six reasons declaring a review stable (see Table 1), with the most common category being a belief that future trials were unlikely (40% of 112).
Conclusions: The use of the stable category is determined on a case-by-case basis, with highly variable practice among CRGs. Stable reviews are mostly concentrated in a handful of CRGs, and reasons for the decision are often poorly reported.
Images
