Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Citation of updated and co-published Cochrane Methodology Reviews
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Background
To evaluate the number of citations for Cochrane Methodology Reviews after they have been updated or co-published in another journal, and the effect of co-publishing the review on the co-publishing journal’s impact factor (IF).
Methods
We identified all Cochrane Methodology Reviews published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
(
CDSR
) before 2018 and searched for co-published versions in the Web of Science Core Collection database up to 16 August 2022. The included reviews were in two cohorts: those that had been published and updated in
CDSR
and those that had been published in
CDSR
and co-published in another journal. The primary outcome measured the citation number to updated and original reviews in the first five years after publication of the updated review, and assessed the citation number of co-published and non-co-published reviews in the first five years after publication of the co-published version.
The secondary outcome was the ratio of an adjusted IF and the actual IF of the co-publishing journal.
Results
Eight updated and six original reviews were identified for the updated cohort of reviews, and four co-published reviews were included in the co-published cohort. The original reviews continued to be cited after the update was published but the median for the total number of citations was non-significantly higher for the updated reviews than for their original version[161 (Interquartile range (IQR) 85, 198) versus 113 (IQR 15, 433)]. The median number of total citations [362 (IQR 179, 840) versus 145 (IQR 75, 445)] and the median number of citations to the review in the first five years after co-publication combined and in each of those years was higher in the co-published group than in the non-co-published group. One of the three journals that co-published Reviews in the first year and two journals in the second year had a lower IF after co-publication.
Conclusions
Earlier versions of Cochrane Methodology Reviews continue to be cited after an update is published, which raises doubts about whether those citing are using the most recent evidence or are aware of the update. Co-publication facilitates broader application and dissemination of Cochrane methodology evidence.
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Title: Citation of updated and co-published Cochrane Methodology Reviews
Description:
Abstract
Background
To evaluate the number of citations for Cochrane Methodology Reviews after they have been updated or co-published in another journal, and the effect of co-publishing the review on the co-publishing journal’s impact factor (IF).
Methods
We identified all Cochrane Methodology Reviews published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
(
CDSR
) before 2018 and searched for co-published versions in the Web of Science Core Collection database up to 16 August 2022.
The included reviews were in two cohorts: those that had been published and updated in
CDSR
and those that had been published in
CDSR
and co-published in another journal.
The primary outcome measured the citation number to updated and original reviews in the first five years after publication of the updated review, and assessed the citation number of co-published and non-co-published reviews in the first five years after publication of the co-published version.
The secondary outcome was the ratio of an adjusted IF and the actual IF of the co-publishing journal.
Results
Eight updated and six original reviews were identified for the updated cohort of reviews, and four co-published reviews were included in the co-published cohort.
The original reviews continued to be cited after the update was published but the median for the total number of citations was non-significantly higher for the updated reviews than for their original version[161 (Interquartile range (IQR) 85, 198) versus 113 (IQR 15, 433)].
The median number of total citations [362 (IQR 179, 840) versus 145 (IQR 75, 445)] and the median number of citations to the review in the first five years after co-publication combined and in each of those years was higher in the co-published group than in the non-co-published group.
One of the three journals that co-published Reviews in the first year and two journals in the second year had a lower IF after co-publication.
Conclusions
Earlier versions of Cochrane Methodology Reviews continue to be cited after an update is published, which raises doubts about whether those citing are using the most recent evidence or are aware of the update.
Co-publication facilitates broader application and dissemination of Cochrane methodology evidence.
Related Results
Citation of updated and co-published Cochrane Methodology Reviews
Citation of updated and co-published Cochrane Methodology Reviews
Abstract
Background To evaluate the number of citations for Cochrane Methodology Reviews after they have been updated or co-published in another journal.
Methods We identif...
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED]Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies ==❱❱ Huge Discounts:[HURRY UP ] Absolute Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies (Available)Order Online Only!! ❰❰= https://www.facebook.com/Keanu-Reeves-CBD-G...
Criteria adherence and citation impact of urologic Cochrane review co‐publications
Criteria adherence and citation impact of urologic Cochrane review co‐publications
AbstractIntroductionCochrane systematic reviews are widely recognized as authoritative sources of evidence. To improve dissemination and impact, editorial groups often encourage co...
Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods
Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods
AbstractThe search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions are drawn and recommendations made. Sear...
Prevalence and Consequences of Anomalous Citation Styles in Ethiopian Academic Journals
Prevalence and Consequences of Anomalous Citation Styles in Ethiopian Academic Journals
Abstract
Background
Study investigating the prevalence of citation inaccuracies occurring due to intentional misuse or failed quality control has been growing, but citatio...
Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview
Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview
AbstractSTUDY QUESTIONAre systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions?SUMMARY ANSWERThe majority of the systematic r...
Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study
Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study
Abstract
Background
Bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can lead to underestimation or overestimation of the true effects of interventions. Surgical RCTs may suffer from th...
Current trends, barriers, and facilitators of use of core outcome sets in Cochrane systematic reviews: Protocol
Current trends, barriers, and facilitators of use of core outcome sets in Cochrane systematic reviews: Protocol
Background
: Core outcome sets (COS) represent agreed-upon minimum outcomes that should be reported in all studies in a given topic area. Cochrane reviews are c...

