Observational studySystematic reviews2024
Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades.
Observational study in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews underpinning clinical practice guidelines for low back pain: a meta-epidemiological study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Experiences from conducting systematic reviews of systematic reviews.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Narrative Reviews in Contemporary Medical Literature: An Overview of Current Role and Relevance.Cureus · 2026Review
- Topic-specific living databases of clinical trials: A scoping review of public databases.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- Authorship trends in systematic reviews: a 30-year analysis in anaesthesia and pain medicine.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Cochrane reviews of acupuncture are dated, do not account for the specific effects of sham controls and likely underestimate the efficacy of acupuncture therapy.Integrative medicine research · 2025Review
- Article
- An overview of reviews of breastfeeding barriers and facilitators: Analyzing global research trends and hotspots.Global epidemiology · 2025Review
- Publicly available continuously updated topic specific databases of randomised clinical trials: A scoping review.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews are viewed as the best study design to guide clinical decision-making as they are the least biased publications assuming they are well-conducted and include well-designed studies. Cochrane was initiated in 1993 with an aim of conducting high-quality systematic reviews. We aimed to examine the publication rates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (henceforth referred to simply as "systematic reviews") and Cochrane reviews produced throughout Cochrane's existence and characterize changes throughout the period.
methodsThis observational study collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993 and 2022 in PubMed. Identified Cochrane reviews were linked to data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via their Digital Object Identifier. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews were analyzed separately. Two authors screened a random sample of records to validate the overall sample, providing a precision of 98%.
resultsWe identified 231,602 (94%) systematic reviews and 15,038 (6%) Cochrane reviews. Publication of systematic reviews has continuously increased with a median yearly increase rate of 26%, while publication of Cochrane reviews has decreased since 2015. From 1993 to 2002, Cochrane reviews constituted 35% of all systematic reviews in PubMed compared with 3.5% in 2013-2022. Systematic reviews consistently had fewer authors than Cochrane reviews, but the number of authors increased over time for both. Chinese first authors conducted 15% and 4% of systematic reviews published from 2013-2022 and 2003-2012, respectively. Most Cochrane reviews had first authors from the UK (36%). The native English-speaking countries the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia produced a large share of systematic reviews (42%) and Cochrane reviews (62%). The largest publishers of systematic reviews in the last 10 years were gold open access journals.
conclusionsPublication of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly, while fewer Cochrane reviews have been published through the last decade. Native English-speaking countries produced a large proportion of both types of systematic reviews. Gold open access journals and Chinese first authors dominated the publication of systematic reviews for the past 10 years. More research is warranted examining why fewer Cochrane reviews are being published. Additionally, examining these systematic reviews for research waste metrics may provide a clearer picture of their utility.
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.