Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: There has been free access to the Cochrane Library across India, via a national subscription purchased by the Indian Council of Medical Research, since 2007. This has resulted in a steady increase in use; and has possibly contributed to the ever-increasing number of Indian Cochrane contributors. The impact of free access to Cochrane Reviews can also be evaluated by assessing whether they informed primary interventional research.
Objectives: To evaluate whether a representative sample of interventional studies published in Indian medical journals cited Cochrane Reviews.
Methods: We identified all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) published in Indian medical journals (2011 to 2014) from the South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials (www.cochrane-sadcct.org). Full texts were searched for citations from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Independently, we evaluated the total and annual number of Cochrane Reviews cited; the proportion of citing journals; and the Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) represented.
Results: In 2011 to 2014, 83 (10%) of 866 interventional studies (517 RCTs; 349 CCTs) published in 66 Indian medical journals, cited 112 Cochrane Reviews. They were cited in 27 journals (41%) that published 688 interventional studies (79%); and 9%, 7%, 21%, and 12% of interventional studies published in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively. Twenty-eight CRGs were represented in these citations; three with more than 10 citations (range 12 to 16); and six by five to 10 citations.
Conclusions: Cochrane Reviews were cited by roughly one in ten primary interventional research studies in this sample of Indian journals, without a clearly sustained increase in annual citations. Free access to Cochrane Reviews in India provides an opportunity for prospective trial authors to fulfil international editorial expectations to submit evidence from systematic reviews to justify trials and to contextualize their results. This incompletely-realized opportunity could be enhanced by endorsement of this initiative by Indian medical journal editors.
Objectives: To evaluate whether a representative sample of interventional studies published in Indian medical journals cited Cochrane Reviews.
Methods: We identified all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) published in Indian medical journals (2011 to 2014) from the South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials (www.cochrane-sadcct.org). Full texts were searched for citations from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Independently, we evaluated the total and annual number of Cochrane Reviews cited; the proportion of citing journals; and the Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) represented.
Results: In 2011 to 2014, 83 (10%) of 866 interventional studies (517 RCTs; 349 CCTs) published in 66 Indian medical journals, cited 112 Cochrane Reviews. They were cited in 27 journals (41%) that published 688 interventional studies (79%); and 9%, 7%, 21%, and 12% of interventional studies published in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively. Twenty-eight CRGs were represented in these citations; three with more than 10 citations (range 12 to 16); and six by five to 10 citations.
Conclusions: Cochrane Reviews were cited by roughly one in ten primary interventional research studies in this sample of Indian journals, without a clearly sustained increase in annual citations. Free access to Cochrane Reviews in India provides an opportunity for prospective trial authors to fulfil international editorial expectations to submit evidence from systematic reviews to justify trials and to contextualize their results. This incompletely-realized opportunity could be enhanced by endorsement of this initiative by Indian medical journal editors.