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

Most Cochrane reviews have not been updated formore than 5 years

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearchpeer-review

DOI

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Increasing number of authors in Cochrane reviews

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Mammography screening in Norway caused substantial overdiagnosis and did not reduce late-stage breast cancers

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debateResearchpeer-review

  4. Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus

    Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearchpeer-review

  1. Mesenteric Lymphadenitis and Terminal Ileitis is Associated With Yersinia Infection: A Meta-analysis

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Intraoperative handling of spermatic cord lipomas during inguinal hernia repair: a nationwide survey

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Trends in the use of patient-reported outcome measures for inguinal hernia repair: a quantitative systematic review

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  4. Watchful waiting vs repair for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic inguinal hernia in men: a systematic review

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

Aim: Cochrane reviews are internationally recognized for their high quality, but to reduce the risk of transmitting misleading information, they must be kept up to date. The aim of this study was to quantify the number of reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) that have not been updated for more than five years and to characterize them. Method: This study was reported closely adapted to the STROBE guidelines. Information about all reviews in the CDSR was extracted in August 2020. Based on a previous study, we defined inactive reviews as reviews with no update in “What's New” or no publication of a new version of the review within the last 5.5 years. The inactive reviews were quantified and characterized and results were visualized through tables and charts. Results: The study included 7931 reviews from the CDSR. The median age of all reviews in the CDSR was 5.3 years. Fifty-five percent were published for the first time between 1996 and February 2015 and 88% of these had been inactive for 5.5 years or more. Among these, 89% were first publication of the review that had never been updated afterward. Conclusion: More than half of the Cochrane reviews in CDSR were first published before 2015 and only 12% of these were still active. In order to retain their validity, it would be preferable if Cochrane reviews were kept up to date by the authors either by an update in “What's New” or by publishing a new version of the review.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine
Volume14
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)181-184
Number of pages4
ISSN1756-5383
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2021

    Research areas

  • Cochrane, evidence-based medicine, methodology, out of date, reporting, systematic reviews, update

ID: 67644282