ArticleBMJ open2021
Using variation between countries to estimate demand for Cochrane reviews when access is free: a cost-benefit analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Knowledge and Use of Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology in the Clinical Practice of Brazilian Psychologists: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCochrane reviews are currently of limited use as many healthcare professionals and patients have no access to them. Most member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) choose not to pay for nationwide access to the reviews, possibly uncertain whether there is enough demand to warrant the costs of a national subscription. This study estimates the demand for review downloads and summary views under free access across all OECD countries.
designThe study employs a retrospective design in analysing observational data of web traffic to Cochrane websites in 2014. Specifically, we model for each country downloads of Cochrane reviews and views of online summaries as a function of free access status and alternative sources of variation across countries. The model is then used to estimate demand if a country with restricted access were to purchase free access. We use these estimates to perform a cost-benefit analysis.
resultsFor one group of eight OECD countries, the additional downloads under free access are estimated to cost between US$4 and more than US$20 each. Three countries are expected to save money under free access, as existing institutional subscriptions would no longer be needed. For the largest group of 17 member states, free access is estimated to cost US$0.05-US$2 per additional review download. On average, the increase in review downloads does not appear to be associated with a decrease in the number of summary views. Instead, translations of plain-language summaries into national languages can serve as an additional strategy for dissemination.
conclusionsWe estimate that free access would cost less than US$2 per additional download for 20 of the 28 OECD countries without national subscriptions, including Canada, Germany and Israel. These countries may be encouraged by our findings to provide free access to their citizens.
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.