Background: BMJ Clinical Evidence, a database of the best available evidence for common clinical interventions, has for its 15-year history had a process whereby external experts in the relevant clinical field are responsible for extracting the data from relevant studies for that particular update. An increase of editorial office capabilities and tools has meant that the data extraction component of the updating process has been brought into the editorial office, so that the time of contributors can be focused on review of extracted data, conclusions and clinical commentary.
Objectives: To categorise the effect of the change from contributors to the editorial team carrying out data extraction on the experience of the contributors.
Methods: In April to May 2015, all BMJ Clinical Evidence contributors who updated a review using editorial office data extraction will be sent a questionnaire asking them to rate their experience in: time taken to complete the update of the review; engagement with the data; ease of applying clinical conclusions and commentary from the data.
Results: A mean score will be calculated for each question.
Conclusions: The results will be used as part of a wider assessment into contributor engagement in review updating for BMJ Clinical Evidence and also elsewhere. No benchmark currently exists, and this will provide a starting point for further development of editorial office versus contributor-led data extraction for the purpose of fast, accurate relevant reviews, and engaged contributors.