Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) did not improve responsiveness of patient-reported outcomes on quality of life

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. More than one-third of Cochrane reviews had gift authors, whereas ghost authorship was rare

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Unlike ROC analysis, a new IRT method identified clinical thresholds unbiased by disease prevalence

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Systematic review finds that appraisal tools for medical research studies address conflicts of interest superficially

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  1. More than one-third of Cochrane reviews had gift authors, whereas ghost authorship was rare

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Group authorships in Cochrane had low compliance with Cochrane recommendations

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume124
Pages (from-to)85-93
Number of pages9
ISSN0895-4356
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2020

    Research areas

  • Cochrane, Methodology, Publication time, Review process, Review protocol, Systematic review

ID: 60646182