ArticleBMJ open2018
A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 5 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Blinding Assessments in Neonatal Ventilation Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Meta-Epidemiological Review.Neonatology · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- A meta-review of the impact of compression therapy on venous leg ulcer healing.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Review
- Clinical outcomes of bowel preparation education strategies in colonoscopy: An evidence map of systematic reviews.Medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- A mapping review of systematic reviews in orthodontics: a five-year analysis.European journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Do the effects of interventions aimed at the prevention of childhood obesity reduce inequities? A re-analysis of randomized trial data from two Cochrane reviews.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Reported methodological quality of medical systematic reviews: Development of an assessment tool (ReMarQ) and meta-research study.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Exploring the characteristics, methods and reporting of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes: a meta-epidemiological study.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- A Meta-Research of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Mental Health: Comparing Pharmacological to Non-Pharmacological Interventions from 1955 to 2020.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Trends of Randomized Clinical Trials Citing Prior Systematic Reviews, 2007-2021.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare cancer-related systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) and high-impact journals, with respect to type, content, quality and citation rates.
designMethodological SR with assessment and comparison of SRs and meta-analyses. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-based extraction form. Both authors independently screened search results, extracted content-relevant characteristics and retrieved citation numbers of the included reviews using the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database. DATA SOURCES: Cancer-related SRs were retrieved from the CDSR, as well as from the 10 journals which publish oncological SRs and had the highest impact factors, using a comprehensive search in both the CDSR and MEDLINE. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included all cancer-related SRs and meta-analyses published from January 2011 to May 2016. Methodological SRs were excluded.
resultsWe included 346 applicable Cochrane reviews and 215 SRs from high-impact journals. Cochrane reviews consistently met more individual AMSTAR criteria, notably with regard to an a priori design (risk ratio (RR) 3.89; 95% CI 3.10 to 4.88), inclusion of the grey literature and trial registries (RR 3.52; 95% CI 2.84 to 4.37) in their searches, and the reporting of excluded studies (RR 8.80; 95% CI 6.06 to 12.78). Cochrane reviews were less likely to address questions of prognosis (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09), use individual patient data (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) or be based on non-randomised controlled trials (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09). Citation rates of Cochrane reviews were notably lower than those for high-impact journals (Cochrane reviews: mean number of citations 6.52 (range 0-143); high-impact journal SRs: 74.45 (0-652)).
conclusionsWhen comparing cancer-related SRs published in the CDSR versus those published in high-impact medical journals, Cochrane reviews were consistently of higher methodological quality, but cited less frequently.
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.