Article type
Abstract
Background: Delayed publication of systematic reviews results in a risk of outdated data. There are no studies to examine the time and review process from title registration and publication of the protocol for a Campbell systematic review to publication of the Campbell systematic review till now.
Objective: This study aims to examine investigated the publication time from protocol to full review publication and the gap time from searches of databases to full review publication for Campbell systematic review.
Method: All Campbell Systematic Review that had to be the first published version were included. We used SPSS software to perform the statistical analysis. We used descriptive statistics to report publication times which will be calculated stratified by characteristics, including year of review publication, type, number of authors, difference in authors between protocol and review, and Campbell Review Groups. Non-normal distributed data were reported as medians, interquartile range, and range, and normal distributed data will be reported as mean ± standard deviation. And we also visualized the overall publication time and the distribution of data.
Result: About 18% reviews were published faster than the aims of policies and guidelines of Campbell systematic reviews with a publication time between one and two years, however, more than 40% of the reviews were published more than two years after the protocol published. And more than 50 % of included reviews were published with more than 2 years’ time gap after databases searches. There was not significantly difference between Campbell coordinating group’ median publication times and time gap form searches of databases to full review publication existed. However, the methods group only published one full review with almost 3 years’ time gap from searches of databases to review publication. And there was major difference between specific type of review. Systematic review had the longest median publication time of 2.4 years, whereas evidence and gap maps had the lowest median publication time of 13 months.
Conclusion: Half of Campbell reviews were published later than 2 years. Furthermore, the specific type of review’ median times from publication of protocol to publication of review varied widely.
Objective: This study aims to examine investigated the publication time from protocol to full review publication and the gap time from searches of databases to full review publication for Campbell systematic review.
Method: All Campbell Systematic Review that had to be the first published version were included. We used SPSS software to perform the statistical analysis. We used descriptive statistics to report publication times which will be calculated stratified by characteristics, including year of review publication, type, number of authors, difference in authors between protocol and review, and Campbell Review Groups. Non-normal distributed data were reported as medians, interquartile range, and range, and normal distributed data will be reported as mean ± standard deviation. And we also visualized the overall publication time and the distribution of data.
Result: About 18% reviews were published faster than the aims of policies and guidelines of Campbell systematic reviews with a publication time between one and two years, however, more than 40% of the reviews were published more than two years after the protocol published. And more than 50 % of included reviews were published with more than 2 years’ time gap after databases searches. There was not significantly difference between Campbell coordinating group’ median publication times and time gap form searches of databases to full review publication existed. However, the methods group only published one full review with almost 3 years’ time gap from searches of databases to review publication. And there was major difference between specific type of review. Systematic review had the longest median publication time of 2.4 years, whereas evidence and gap maps had the lowest median publication time of 13 months.
Conclusion: Half of Campbell reviews were published later than 2 years. Furthermore, the specific type of review’ median times from publication of protocol to publication of review varied widely.