Advertisement

Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol

  • Mikkel Zola Andersen
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. AndersenCenter for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730 Herlev, Denmark. Tel.: +45 22269395; fax: +45 38683928.
    Affiliations
    Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark

    Cochrane Colorectal Group, Herlev Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark
    Search for articles by this author
  • Sengül Gülen
    Affiliations
    Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark

    Cochrane Colorectal Group, Herlev Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark
    Search for articles by this author
  • Siv Fonnes
    Affiliations
    Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark

    Cochrane Colorectal Group, Herlev Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark
    Search for articles by this author
  • Kristoffer Andresen
    Affiliations
    Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark

    Cochrane Colorectal Group, Herlev Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jacob Rosenberg
    Affiliations
    Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark

    Cochrane Colorectal Group, Herlev Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark
    Search for articles by this author

      Highlights

      • Cochrane reviews took a median of 2 years to publish after publication of the protocol.
      • For 11% of reviews, the time from protocol to review publication was more than 5 years.
      • Cochrane reviews have been publishing slower in the past 5 years than previously.
      • A large variation existed between median publication times of different Cochrane Review Groups.

      Abstract

      Objectives

      The objective of the study is to examine the time from publication of the protocol for a Cochrane review to publication of the Cochrane review for the entire Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).

      Study Design and Settings

      Cochrane reviews from the CDSR published between 1995 and 2019 were assessed. Characteristics of the reviews were extracted, and time from publication of protocol to publication of review was calculated. These times were grouped for relevant characteristics and visualized through charts and tables to illustrate trends.

      Results

      Of the total 8,201 reviews in the CDSR, 6,764 were included. The median publication time was 2 years (range 0 days to 21.7 years). Reviews that were published more than 5 years after the protocol made up 11% of all included reviews, whereas 19% of reviews were published within a year. The median publication time for the individual Cochrane Review Groups ranged from 15 to 39 months.

      Conclusion

      Half of Cochrane reviews were published later than Cochrane's aim of 2 years. Furthermore, the Cochrane Review Groups' median times from publication of protocol to publication of review varied widely.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Tricco A.C.
        • Brehaut J.
        • Chen M.H.
        • Moher D.
        Following 411 Cochrane protocols to completion: a retrospective cohort study.
        PLoS One. 2008; 3: e3684
        • Runjic E.
        • Behmen D.
        • Pieper D.
        • Mathes T.
        • Tricco A.C.
        • Moher D.
        • et al.
        Following Cochrane review protocols to completion 10 years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 111: 41-48
        • Boric K.
        • Dosenovic S.
        • Jelicic Kadic A.
        • Batinic M.
        • Cavar M.
        • Urlic M.
        • et al.
        Interventions for postoperative pain in children: an overview of systematic reviews.
        Paediatr Anaesth. 2017; 27: 893-904
        • Moseley A.M.
        • Elkins M.R.
        • Herbert R.D.
        • Maher C.G.
        • Sherrington C.
        Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1021-1030
        • Collier A.
        • Heilig L.
        • Schilling L.
        • Williams H.
        • Dellavalle R.P.
        Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology.
        Br J Dermatol. 2006; 155: 1230-1235
        • Jadad A.R.
        • Cook D.J.
        • Jones A.
        • Klassen T.P.
        • Tugwell P.
        • Moher M.
        • et al.
        Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals.
        JAMA. 1998; 280: 278-280
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Lasserson T.
        • Chandler J.
        • Altman D.
        Methodological expectations of Cochrane intervention reviews.
        Cochrane, London2016
        • Cochrane Library
        Cochrane Review Groups and Networks.
        (Available at:)
        https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/cochrane-review-groups
        Date: 2019
        Date accessed: February 13, 2020
        • Moher D.
        • Shamseer L.
        • Clarke M.
        • Ghersi D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Petticrew M.
        • et al.
        Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.
        Syst Rev. 2015; 4: 1
        • Shamseer L.
        • Moher D.
        Planning a systematic review? Think protocols.
        (Available at:)
        http://www.prisma-statement.org/Protocols/WhyProtocols
        Date: 2015
        Date accessed: February 13, 2020
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Thomas J.
        • Chandler J.
        • Cumpston M.
        • Li T.
        • Page M.J.
        • et al.
        Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0. Cochrane 2019.
        (Available at:)
        https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
        Date accessed: February 13, 2020
        • Windsor B.
        • Popovich I.
        • Jordan V.
        • Showell M.
        • Shea B.
        • Farquhar C.
        Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies.
        Hum Reprod. 2012; 27: 3460-3466
        • Fleming P.S.
        • Seehra J.
        • Polychronopoulou A.
        • Fedorowicz Z.
        • Pandis N.
        Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?.
        Eur J Orthod. 2013; 35: 244-248
        • Moher D.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Tricco A.C.
        • Sampson M.
        • Altman D.G.
        Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.
        PLoS Med. 2007; 4: 447-455
        • Wen J.
        • Ren Y.
        • Wang L.
        • Li Y.
        • Liu Y.
        • Zhou M.
        • et al.
        The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 770-775
        • Delaney A.
        • Bagshaw S.M.
        • Ferland A.
        • Laupland K.
        • Manns B.
        • Doig C.
        The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal.
        Crit Care Med. 2007; 35: 589-594
        • Shea B.
        • Moher D.
        • Graham I.
        • Pham B.
        • Tugwell P.
        A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals.
        Eval Health Prof. 2002; 25: 116-129
        • Cochrane Community
        Proposing and registering new Cochrane reviews.
        (Available at:)
        • Green S.
        • Higgins J.P.
        2.3.3 Registering a protocol.
        (Available at:)
        • Shojania K.G.
        • Sampson M.
        • Ansari M.T.
        • Ji J.
        • Doucette S.
        • Moher D.
        How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis.
        Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147: 224-233
        • Tricco A.C.
        • Moher D.
        • Chen M.H.
        • Daniel R.
        Factors predicting completion and time to publication of Cochrane reviews.
        Open Med. 2009; 3: e210-e214
        • von Elm E.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Egger M.
        • Pocock S.J.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        • Vandenbroucke J.P.
        • STROBE Initiative
        The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.
        Int J Surg. 2014; 12: 1495-1499
        • Cochrane Library
        Cochrane database of systematic reviews: all issues.
        (Available at:)
        https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/table-of-contents
        Date: 2019
        Date accessed: February 13, 2020
        • Cochrane Community
        Publication frequency - publish when ready.
        (Available at:)
        • Cochrane Library
        Cochrane database of systematic reviews.
        (Available at:)
        https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/reviews
        Date: 2019
        Date accessed: February 13, 2020
        • Chris Champion
        Cochrane author satisfaction 2019.
        (Available at:)
        • Kirkham J.J.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Williamson P.R.
        Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process.
        PLoS One. 2010; 5: e9810
        • Page M.J.
        • Shamseer L.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Sampson M.
        • Tricco A.C.
        • et al.
        Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical resesarch: a cross-sectional study.
        PLoS Med. 2016; 13: e1002028
        • Fontanarosa P.
        • Bauchner H.
        • Flanagin A.
        Authorship and team science.
        JAMA. 2017; 318: 2433-2437