Article type
Abstract
Background. Cochrane Systematic Reviews are well-known for their rigorous methodology and high-quality evidence synthesis in biomedical research. However, they require a lot of time and effort to produce. It is uncertain whether Cochrane Reviews are more frequently cited in the literature compared with non-Cochrane reviews.
Objective. We aimed to examine the different citation patterns of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane systematic reviews through a bibliometric analysis.
Methods. This bibliometric analysis followed the bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO) reporting guideline. We collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993–2022 in PubMed. Cochrane Reviews were identified by linking PubMed records to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through their Digital Object Identifier. To allow time for the reviews to gather citations, we included reviews from 1993–2018. Citation count per year was collected from The Lens through an Application Programming Interface and cross-referred with the systematic reviews using their PubMed identifier. We conducted the statistical analyses using R software and performed subgroup analyses by dividing data into five-year intervals to account for increased number of publications over time.
Results. We included 13,002 Cochrane Reviews and 106,250 non-Cochrane reviews and the five million citations of these. The non-Cochrane reviews had a higher number of median citations from 1993−2007 (median difference 1993–1997: 78 [95% CI 44–88], 1998–2002: 40 [95% CI 28–40], 2003–2007: 12 [95% CI 4–12]). From 2013–2018, Cochrane Reviews had a higher number of median citations (median difference 4 [95% CI 2–5]) (Figure 1), while the volume of non-Cochrane reviews increased drastically (Figure 2). There were 29 (0.31%) Cochrane Reviews that had received zero citations compared with 1,197 (1.12%) non-Cochrane reviews (difference 0.82% [95% CI 0.69–0.95%], p < 0.01).
Conclusion. Non-Cochrane reviews received more citations from 1993–2007, whereas Cochrane Reviews received slightly more from 2013 and forward. This may indicate a need for improved communication of the unique qualities of Cochrane Reviews.
Relevance and importance for patients. Patients should be treated according to evidence-based information. Understanding citation patterns of reviews can aid in ensuring that high-quality reviews are used.
Keywords. Cochrane Collaboration, systematic reviews, bibliometric analysis, citations, scholarly impact, evidence synthesis
Objective. We aimed to examine the different citation patterns of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane systematic reviews through a bibliometric analysis.
Methods. This bibliometric analysis followed the bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO) reporting guideline. We collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993–2022 in PubMed. Cochrane Reviews were identified by linking PubMed records to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through their Digital Object Identifier. To allow time for the reviews to gather citations, we included reviews from 1993–2018. Citation count per year was collected from The Lens through an Application Programming Interface and cross-referred with the systematic reviews using their PubMed identifier. We conducted the statistical analyses using R software and performed subgroup analyses by dividing data into five-year intervals to account for increased number of publications over time.
Results. We included 13,002 Cochrane Reviews and 106,250 non-Cochrane reviews and the five million citations of these. The non-Cochrane reviews had a higher number of median citations from 1993−2007 (median difference 1993–1997: 78 [95% CI 44–88], 1998–2002: 40 [95% CI 28–40], 2003–2007: 12 [95% CI 4–12]). From 2013–2018, Cochrane Reviews had a higher number of median citations (median difference 4 [95% CI 2–5]) (Figure 1), while the volume of non-Cochrane reviews increased drastically (Figure 2). There were 29 (0.31%) Cochrane Reviews that had received zero citations compared with 1,197 (1.12%) non-Cochrane reviews (difference 0.82% [95% CI 0.69–0.95%], p < 0.01).
Conclusion. Non-Cochrane reviews received more citations from 1993–2007, whereas Cochrane Reviews received slightly more from 2013 and forward. This may indicate a need for improved communication of the unique qualities of Cochrane Reviews.
Relevance and importance for patients. Patients should be treated according to evidence-based information. Understanding citation patterns of reviews can aid in ensuring that high-quality reviews are used.
Keywords. Cochrane Collaboration, systematic reviews, bibliometric analysis, citations, scholarly impact, evidence synthesis