Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: approximately a quarter of all Cochrane Reviews (CRs) remain unpublished after eight years [1]. The editorial process of many Cochrane review groups has often been time-consuming and discouraging for both newcomers and senior authors: the overall median time from title registration to publication is 2.78 years (interquartile range 0.96 to 8.05). One of the advocated advantages of CRs as a source of evidence synthesis is to be a living publication, which continually incorporates findings from primary studies. Cochrane authors are thus committed to keeping the review updated, as a standard every two years, or as soon as new primary studies emerge that may be incorporated into the previous version.
Objectives: to assess the time interval for first publication of CRs and their update under the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Disease of the Central Nervous System (CMSRD-CNS) Group.
Methods: we extracted data from CRs published by the CMSRD-CNS Group and made available at the Cochrane Library (edition 3, 2019). Two researchers (RR and AR) independently screened and evaluated all records to confirm their eligibility. We defined the time interval for first publishing as the interval from protocol to first publication of the full review. We defined the time interval for update as the interval from the immediately preceding version to the last version of the full review.
Results: of 59 CRs, 7 were excluded: 6 because they were published beyond 2017 (so they are still susceptible to being updated) and 1 because the publication date of the protocol was unavailable. Considering 52 included CRs, we observed a mean interval time of 2.1 years for first publication. Overall, 32.6% of CRs that should have been updated were in fact updated, and 14% were updated within two years. The mean interval for updating was 3.4 years.
Conclusions: publishing and updating a CR takes a long time, even with full logistic and methodological support from a well-structured Cochrane review group like CMSRD-CNS. Under this review group, the mean times for publishing and updating were 2.1 and 3.4 years, respectively, and numerous reviews were never updated. Authors, peer reviewers and editorial teams should identify reasons for these findings, which are similar for those from review groups in general. All Cochrane review groups should consider strategies for enhancing completion and updating of CRs.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Cochrane Reviews are considered the gold standard for informing health professionals and patients about the effects of healthcare interventions because they are methodologically rigorous, updated and available. Unfinished or outdated reviews limit Cochrane's impact on health care.
Objectives: to assess the time interval for first publication of CRs and their update under the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Disease of the Central Nervous System (CMSRD-CNS) Group.
Methods: we extracted data from CRs published by the CMSRD-CNS Group and made available at the Cochrane Library (edition 3, 2019). Two researchers (RR and AR) independently screened and evaluated all records to confirm their eligibility. We defined the time interval for first publishing as the interval from protocol to first publication of the full review. We defined the time interval for update as the interval from the immediately preceding version to the last version of the full review.
Results: of 59 CRs, 7 were excluded: 6 because they were published beyond 2017 (so they are still susceptible to being updated) and 1 because the publication date of the protocol was unavailable. Considering 52 included CRs, we observed a mean interval time of 2.1 years for first publication. Overall, 32.6% of CRs that should have been updated were in fact updated, and 14% were updated within two years. The mean interval for updating was 3.4 years.
Conclusions: publishing and updating a CR takes a long time, even with full logistic and methodological support from a well-structured Cochrane review group like CMSRD-CNS. Under this review group, the mean times for publishing and updating were 2.1 and 3.4 years, respectively, and numerous reviews were never updated. Authors, peer reviewers and editorial teams should identify reasons for these findings, which are similar for those from review groups in general. All Cochrane review groups should consider strategies for enhancing completion and updating of CRs.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Cochrane Reviews are considered the gold standard for informing health professionals and patients about the effects of healthcare interventions because they are methodologically rigorous, updated and available. Unfinished or outdated reviews limit Cochrane's impact on health care.
PDF