Article type
Year
Abstract
Background and Objectives:
Stakeholder involvement in Cochrane reviews (CRs) is increasingly being recognized as critically important. It promotes clinical relevance, dissemination and ultimately integration into individual patient and health policy decision-making. The focus of this study was to assess to what extent urologists participated in CRs related to their specialty.
Methods:
Based on a predefined written protocol, we retrieved the abstracts and author affiliations of all CRs published in The Cochrane Library (date of last search: 10 January 2014) and classified under 'urology'. Data points abstracted were the review title, date of publication, authors’ names, departmental, institutional and country affiliations, and Cochrane Review Group (CRG). We based the determination of the authors’ professional information on information provided in the published review supplemented by Internet searches. Data abstraction was performed by one member of the investigating team and double-checked by another. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 22.0.
Results:
We identified 143 unique CRs published between 1998 and 2013. The Incontinence Group was responsible for the largest number of reviews (85; 59.4%) followed by the Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group (44; 30.8%) and the Renal Group (8; 5.6%). The median number of: authors was four (IQR: 3; 5), institutions was two (IQR: 2; 3) and departments was three (IQR: 2; 4). A majority of reviews originated from a single country (88; 61.5%). Authors from 20 countries contributed to urology-related reviews; the UK had the greatest author contribution (82; 39.6%) followed by the USA (28; 13.5%) and Australia (19; 9.2%). Urologists contributed to approximately one-third of the reviews (52; 36.4%). This percentage (range: 36.5% to 40.9%) was similar for all three major contributing CRGs.
Conclusions:
Only one in three CRs related to urology includes authors that are urologists. There is concern that a lack of specialty-specific stakeholder involvement constitutes a barrier to the uptake of CRs; therefore, increased efforts to engage specialists appear to be indicated.
Stakeholder involvement in Cochrane reviews (CRs) is increasingly being recognized as critically important. It promotes clinical relevance, dissemination and ultimately integration into individual patient and health policy decision-making. The focus of this study was to assess to what extent urologists participated in CRs related to their specialty.
Methods:
Based on a predefined written protocol, we retrieved the abstracts and author affiliations of all CRs published in The Cochrane Library (date of last search: 10 January 2014) and classified under 'urology'. Data points abstracted were the review title, date of publication, authors’ names, departmental, institutional and country affiliations, and Cochrane Review Group (CRG). We based the determination of the authors’ professional information on information provided in the published review supplemented by Internet searches. Data abstraction was performed by one member of the investigating team and double-checked by another. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 22.0.
Results:
We identified 143 unique CRs published between 1998 and 2013. The Incontinence Group was responsible for the largest number of reviews (85; 59.4%) followed by the Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group (44; 30.8%) and the Renal Group (8; 5.6%). The median number of: authors was four (IQR: 3; 5), institutions was two (IQR: 2; 3) and departments was three (IQR: 2; 4). A majority of reviews originated from a single country (88; 61.5%). Authors from 20 countries contributed to urology-related reviews; the UK had the greatest author contribution (82; 39.6%) followed by the USA (28; 13.5%) and Australia (19; 9.2%). Urologists contributed to approximately one-third of the reviews (52; 36.4%). This percentage (range: 36.5% to 40.9%) was similar for all three major contributing CRGs.
Conclusions:
Only one in three CRs related to urology includes authors that are urologists. There is concern that a lack of specialty-specific stakeholder involvement constitutes a barrier to the uptake of CRs; therefore, increased efforts to engage specialists appear to be indicated.