ArticleSystematic reviews2014
The impact of Cochrane Systematic Reviews: a mixed method evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of statin treatment based on cardiovascular outcomes in elderly patients: a standard meta-analysis and Bayesian network analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Pooled it
- The impact generated by publicly and charity-funded research in the United Kingdom: a systematic literature review.Health research policy and systems · 2019Pooled it
- Effect of High-Dose Statin Pretreatment on the Incidence of Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Grading the Evidence Through a Cumulative Meta-analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2015Pooled it
- Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades.Systematic reviews · 2024Observational
- Article
- The power of weak signals: how systematic reviews direct researchers away from potentially biased primary studies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Article
- What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research.Health research policy and systems · 2022Review
- Experiences of Using Cochrane Systematic Reviews by Local HTA Units.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Review
- Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development-A Survey of 585 Recommendations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Using variation between countries to estimate demand for Cochrane reviews when access is free: a cost-benefit analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
- The impact of conducting preclinical systematic reviews on researchers and their research: A mixed method case study.PloS one · 2021Article
- Methodological approaches for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis: a study protocol.Open research Europe · 2021Article
- Clinical outcome comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention and bypass surgery in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2019Article
- Does citation matter? Research citation in policy documents as an indicator of research impact - an Australian obesity policy case-study.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere has been a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision-making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, have been a key component of this movement. The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). The aim of this study was to identify the impacts of Cochrane reviews published by NIHR-funded CRGs during the years 2007-2011.
methodsWe sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, interviewed guideline developers and used bibliometrics and documentary review to get an overview of CRG impact and to evaluate the impact of a sample of 60 Cochrane reviews. We used a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development and impact on practice/services).
resultsA total of 1,502 new and updated reviews were produced by the 20 NIHR-funded CRGs between 2007 and 2011. The clearest impacts were on policy with a total of 483 systematic reviews cited in 247 sets of guidance: 62 were international, 175 national (87 from the UK) and 10 local. Review authors and CRGs provided some examples of impact on practice or services, for example, safer use of medication, the identification of new effective drugs or treatments and potential economic benefits through the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures. However, such impacts are difficult to objectively document, and the majority of reviewers were unsure if their review had produced specific impacts. Qualitative data suggested that Cochrane reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance, although a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and guideline developers were barriers to their use.
conclusionsHealth and economic impacts of research are generally difficult to measure. We found that to be the case with this evaluation. Impacts on knowledge production and clinical guidance were easier to identify and substantiate than those on clinical practice. Questions remain about how we define and measure impact, and more work is needed to develop suitable methods for impact analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.