Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Plenty of protocols related to Chinese medicine have been published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). However, on searching the database, we found that some of them had been withdrawn due to time lag caused by being unable to turn the protocols into full reviews. It is important to explore the possible reasons for the inability to complete reviews, and delays in completion.
Objectives: To investigate the potential factors that may relate to the process of Chinese medicine Cochrane Reviews.
Methods: Until December 2010, 56 Chinese medicine-related protocols were published in CDSR without a full review having been published. We searched for all those protocols in March 2015, and noted their current status. The following information was extracted: number of authors, authors’ country of origin, authors’ affiliation, type of intervention, type of conditions, number of included trials, use of meta-analysis, date of publishing. Article level metrics scores of the review were also addressed if a full review had been published. Binary logistic regression with SPSS software (version 20.0) was employed to investigate the relationship between protocol status and the potential impact factors.
Results: Only 17 of the 56 published protocols had been published as a full review, 24 of them were still in protocol status, and the remaining 15 had been withdrawn during the past five years. Characteristics of the included protocols are shown in Table 1. The only potential impact factor we found for whether a Chinese medicine-related protocol published in full review or withdrawn was the authors’ country of origin. If at least one of the co-authors came from an English-speaking country a full review was more likely to be published than if the authors were all non-English-speaking (partial regression coefficient 2.078, P value 0.03).
Conclusions: Review authors’ English language ability may be an important factor for the process of finalizing Cochrane Reviews. Thus, we suggest that review author teams should include at least one native English-speaking author.
Objectives: To investigate the potential factors that may relate to the process of Chinese medicine Cochrane Reviews.
Methods: Until December 2010, 56 Chinese medicine-related protocols were published in CDSR without a full review having been published. We searched for all those protocols in March 2015, and noted their current status. The following information was extracted: number of authors, authors’ country of origin, authors’ affiliation, type of intervention, type of conditions, number of included trials, use of meta-analysis, date of publishing. Article level metrics scores of the review were also addressed if a full review had been published. Binary logistic regression with SPSS software (version 20.0) was employed to investigate the relationship between protocol status and the potential impact factors.
Results: Only 17 of the 56 published protocols had been published as a full review, 24 of them were still in protocol status, and the remaining 15 had been withdrawn during the past five years. Characteristics of the included protocols are shown in Table 1. The only potential impact factor we found for whether a Chinese medicine-related protocol published in full review or withdrawn was the authors’ country of origin. If at least one of the co-authors came from an English-speaking country a full review was more likely to be published than if the authors were all non-English-speaking (partial regression coefficient 2.078, P value 0.03).
Conclusions: Review authors’ English language ability may be an important factor for the process of finalizing Cochrane Reviews. Thus, we suggest that review author teams should include at least one native English-speaking author.