Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) are considered by many to be the gold standard in evaluation of the effects of interventions. Therefore, it should be expected that Cochrane SRs have higher visibility than SRs published elsewhere. Until recently, the number of citations used to be the only method for assessing the visibility of a paper. This approach is not optimal for identifying the best synthesis since it considers aspects other than methodological rigour.
Objectives: To compare the visibility between Cochrane SRs and SRs from journals with high impact factors.
Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis that included all SRs of interventions published in high impact factor (IF) journals in 2015 (IF Journal Citation Reports 2015 > 11,862) and a paired random sample from 2015 published Cochrane SRs. Two authors compared the number of citations between the two types of reviews and discussed the results.
Results: Our sample had 67 Cochrane and 67 non-Cochrane SRs. The Cochrane SRs had a lower mean number of citations (mean 4.43; SD 6.23) when compared to non-Cochrane SRs (mean 59.40; SD 52.42; P < 0.0001).
Conclusions: In agreement with other reports, we found that Cochrane SRs have fewer citations than high impact factor journal SRs. Despite the credibility of the editorial process with which Cochrane SRs have to comply, there is no apparent gain regarding visibility. Some authors have strongly criticized the standard reporting format of Cochrane SRs, and consider the experience of reading them difficult and boring. The commitment to reporting the applied methodology rigidly also reflects the increase in length and complexity of the manuscript. The impact of publication bias should also be considered. The Cochrane Library has a commitment to publish every SR, even in the absence of studies to be included, or when lacking practical clinical conclusions. This commitment is not always observed in other journals. The tendency to cite 'positive' results may be the reason for the discrepancy in the citation numbers. Further studies are imperative to study these findings, but the need to rediscuss the format of Cochrane SRs reports is evident.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: To evaluate the visibility of SRs raises discussions about the dissemination of the results and conclusions of Cochrane SRs to patients and healthcare consumers.
Objectives: To compare the visibility between Cochrane SRs and SRs from journals with high impact factors.
Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis that included all SRs of interventions published in high impact factor (IF) journals in 2015 (IF Journal Citation Reports 2015 > 11,862) and a paired random sample from 2015 published Cochrane SRs. Two authors compared the number of citations between the two types of reviews and discussed the results.
Results: Our sample had 67 Cochrane and 67 non-Cochrane SRs. The Cochrane SRs had a lower mean number of citations (mean 4.43; SD 6.23) when compared to non-Cochrane SRs (mean 59.40; SD 52.42; P < 0.0001).
Conclusions: In agreement with other reports, we found that Cochrane SRs have fewer citations than high impact factor journal SRs. Despite the credibility of the editorial process with which Cochrane SRs have to comply, there is no apparent gain regarding visibility. Some authors have strongly criticized the standard reporting format of Cochrane SRs, and consider the experience of reading them difficult and boring. The commitment to reporting the applied methodology rigidly also reflects the increase in length and complexity of the manuscript. The impact of publication bias should also be considered. The Cochrane Library has a commitment to publish every SR, even in the absence of studies to be included, or when lacking practical clinical conclusions. This commitment is not always observed in other journals. The tendency to cite 'positive' results may be the reason for the discrepancy in the citation numbers. Further studies are imperative to study these findings, but the need to rediscuss the format of Cochrane SRs reports is evident.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: To evaluate the visibility of SRs raises discussions about the dissemination of the results and conclusions of Cochrane SRs to patients and healthcare consumers.