|
1
|
Andersen MZ, Zeinert P, Rosenberg J, Fonnes S. Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades. Syst Rev 2024; 13:120. [PMID: 38698429 PMCID: PMC11064235 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02531-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2023] [Accepted: 04/13/2024] [Indexed: 05/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Systematic reviews are viewed as the best study design to guide clinical decision-making as they are the least biased publications assuming they are well-conducted and include well-designed studies. Cochrane was initiated in 1993 with an aim of conducting high-quality systematic reviews. We aimed to examine the publication rates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (henceforth referred to simply as "systematic reviews") and Cochrane reviews produced throughout Cochrane's existence and characterize changes throughout the period. METHODS This observational study collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993 and 2022 in PubMed. Identified Cochrane reviews were linked to data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via their Digital Object Identifier. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews were analyzed separately. Two authors screened a random sample of records to validate the overall sample, providing a precision of 98%. RESULTS We identified 231,602 (94%) systematic reviews and 15,038 (6%) Cochrane reviews. Publication of systematic reviews has continuously increased with a median yearly increase rate of 26%, while publication of Cochrane reviews has decreased since 2015. From 1993 to 2002, Cochrane reviews constituted 35% of all systematic reviews in PubMed compared with 3.5% in 2013-2022. Systematic reviews consistently had fewer authors than Cochrane reviews, but the number of authors increased over time for both. Chinese first authors conducted 15% and 4% of systematic reviews published from 2013-2022 and 2003-2012, respectively. Most Cochrane reviews had first authors from the UK (36%). The native English-speaking countries the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia produced a large share of systematic reviews (42%) and Cochrane reviews (62%). The largest publishers of systematic reviews in the last 10 years were gold open access journals. CONCLUSIONS Publication of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly, while fewer Cochrane reviews have been published through the last decade. Native English-speaking countries produced a large proportion of both types of systematic reviews. Gold open access journals and Chinese first authors dominated the publication of systematic reviews for the past 10 years. More research is warranted examining why fewer Cochrane reviews are being published. Additionally, examining these systematic reviews for research waste metrics may provide a clearer picture of their utility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mikkel Zola Andersen
- Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, Herlev, 2730, Denmark.
- Cochrane Colorectal Group, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, Herlev, 2730, Denmark.
| | - Philine Zeinert
- Copenhagen University Library, Royal Danish Library, Søren Kierkegaards Plads 1, Copenhagen K, 1221, Denmark
| | - Jacob Rosenberg
- Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, Herlev, 2730, Denmark
- Cochrane Colorectal Group, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, Herlev, 2730, Denmark
| | - Siv Fonnes
- Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, Herlev, 2730, Denmark
- Cochrane Colorectal Group, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, Herlev, 2730, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Puljak L, Bala MM, Zając J, Meštrović T, Buttigieg S, Yanakoulia M, Briel M, Lunny C, Lesniak W, Poklepović Peričić T, Alonso-Coello P, Clarke M, Djulbegovic B, Gartlehner G, Giannakou K, Glenny AM, Glenton C, Guyatt G, Hemkens LG, Ioannidis JPA, Jaeschke R, Juhl Jørgensen K, Martins-Pfeifer CC, Marušić A, Mbuagbaw L, Meneses Echavez JF, Moher D, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Page MJ, Pérez-Gaxiola G, Robinson KA, Salanti G, Saldanha IJ, Savović J, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Tugwell P, van Hoof J, Pieper D. Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 168:111247. [PMID: 38185190 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111247] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2023] [Revised: 12/22/2023] [Accepted: 01/03/2024] [Indexed: 01/09/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions. RESULTS Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring. CONCLUSION Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Livia Puljak
- Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Healthcare, Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia.
| | - Małgorzata M Bala
- Systematic Reviews Unit, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland
| | - Joanna Zając
- Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland
| | | | - Sandra Buttigieg
- Department of Health Systems Management and Leadership, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Malta, Msida, Malta
| | - Mary Yanakoulia
- Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece
| | - Matthias Briel
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Carole Lunny
- Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Cochrane Hypertension Review Group, The Therapeutics Initiative, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | | | - Tina Poklepović Peričić
- Department of Prosthodontics, Study of Dental Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Pablo Alonso-Coello
- Institut de Recerca Sant Pau (IR SANT PAU), Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| | - Mike Clarke
- Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit (NICTU), Belfast, UK; Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Benjamin Djulbegovic
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
| | - Gerald Gartlehner
- RTI International, The RTI International-University of North Carolina Evidence-Based Practice Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria
| | - Konstantinos Giannakou
- Department of Health Sciences, School of Sciences, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | - Anne-Marie Glenny
- Division of Dentistry, Cochrane Oral Health, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Claire Glenton
- Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway
| | - Gordon Guyatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lars G Hemkens
- Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel (RC2NB), University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Meta-Research Innovation Center Berlin (METRIC-B), Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - John P A Ioannidis
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Roman Jaeschke
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
- Department of Clinical Research, Cochrane Denmark and Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | | | - Ana Marušić
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, Center for Evidence-based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Lawrence Mbuagbaw
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Biostatistics Unit, Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jose Francisco Meneses Echavez
- Facultad de Cultura Física, Deporte y Recreación, Universidad Santo Tomás, Bogotá, Colombia; Division of Health Services at Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway
| | - David Moher
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit
- Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria
| | - Matthew J Page
- Methods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Karen A Robinson
- Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Georgia Salanti
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Ian J Saldanha
- Department of Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Jelena Savović
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West (ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - James Thomas
- EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - Andrea C Tricco
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Epidemiology Division and the Institute of Health Management, Policy, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - Peter Tugwell
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Joost van Hoof
- The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Faculty Social Work & Education, The Hague, The Netherlands; Institute of Spatial Management, Faculty of Spatial Management and Landscape Architecture, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wrocław, Poland
| | - Dawid Pieper
- Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Rüdersdorf, Germany; Center for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Rüdersdorf, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Stern C, Hines S, Leonardi-Bee J, Slyer J, Wilson S, Carrier J, Wang N, Aromataris E. Attack of zombie reviews? JBI Evidence Synthesis editors discuss the commentary "Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews". JBI Evid Synth 2024; 22:359-363. [PMID: 38352984 DOI: 10.11124/jbies-23-00548] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/14/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Cindy Stern
- JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Sonia Hines
- Mparntwe Centre for Evidence in Health, Flinders University: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Alice Springs, NT, Australia
| | - Jo Leonardi-Bee
- The Nottingham Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare: A JBI Centre of Excellence, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Jason Slyer
- The Northeast Institute for Evidence Synthesis and Translation: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA
| | - Sally Wilson
- The Western Australian Group for Evidence Informed Healthcare Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Judith Carrier
- The Wales Centre for Evidence Based Care: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Cardiff University, Wales, UK
| | - Ning Wang
- Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery Practice PR China: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Edoardo Aromataris
- JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Karunananthan S, Grimshaw JM, Maxwell L, Nguyen PY, Page MJ, Pardo Pardo J, Petkovic J, Vachon B, Welch VA, Tugwell P. Can a replication revolution resolve the duplication crisis in systematic reviews? BMJ Evid Based Med 2023:bmjebm-2022-112125. [PMID: 37821212 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112125] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/19/2023] [Indexed: 10/13/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Sathya Karunananthan
- Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Bruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jeremy M Grimshaw
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lara Maxwell
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Phi-Yen Nguyen
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Matthew J Page
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jordi Pardo Pardo
- Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Brigitte Vachon
- School of Rehabilitation, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Vivian Andrea Welch
- Bruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Peter Tugwell
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Teichert F, Karner V, Döding R, Saueressig T, Owen PJ, Belavy DL. Effectiveness of Exercise Interventions for Preventing Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023; 53:594–609. [PMID: 37683100 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2023.12063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on the effectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent episodes of neck pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and trial registries from inception to December 2, 2022. Forward and backward citation searches. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adults without neck pain at baseline and compared exercise interventions to no intervention, placebo/sham, attention control, or minimal intervention. Military populations and astronauts were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The certainty of evidence was judged according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 4703 records screened, 5 trials (1722 participants at baseline) were included and eligible for meta-analysis. Most (80%) participants were office workers. Risk of bias was rated as some concerns for 2 trials and high for 3 trials. There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise interventions probably reduce the risk of a new episode of neck pain (OR, 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.31, 0.76) compared to no or minimal intervention in the short-term (≤12 months). The results were not robust to sensitivity analyses for missing outcome data. CONCLUSION: There was moderate-certainty evidence supporting exercise interventions for reducing the risk for an episode of neck pain in the next 12 months. The clinical significance of the effect is unclear. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(10):1-16. Epub: 8 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12063.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florian Teichert
- Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Applied Health Sciences, Hochschule für Gesundheit (University of Applied Sciences), Bochum, Germany
| | - Vera Karner
- Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Applied Health Sciences, Hochschule für Gesundheit (University of Applied Sciences), Bochum, Germany
| | - Rebekka Döding
- Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Applied Health Sciences, Hochschule für Gesundheit (University of Applied Sciences), Bochum, Germany
| | | | - Patrick J Owen
- Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
| | - Daniel L Belavy
- Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Applied Health Sciences, Hochschule für Gesundheit (University of Applied Sciences), Bochum, Germany
| |
Collapse
|