ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2024
Assessment of publication time in
Review in Campbell systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Delayed publication of systematic reviews increases the risk of presenting outdated data. To date, no studies have examined the time and review process from title registration and protocol publication to the final publication of Campbell systematic reviews. This study aims to examine the publication time from protocol to full review publication and the time gap between database searches and full review publication for Campbell systematic reviews. All Campbell systematic reviews in their first published version were included. We searched the Campbell systematic review journals on the Wiley Online Library website to identify all completed studies to date. We manually searched the table of contents of all Campbell systematic reviews to obtain the date of title registration from the journal's website. We used SPSS software to perform the statistical analysis. We used descriptive statistics to report publication times which were calculated stratified by characteristics, including year of review publication, type of reviews, number of authors, difference in authors between protocol and review, and Campbell Review Groups. Non-normal distributed data were reported as medians, interquartile range, and range, and normal distributed data will be reported as mean ± standard deviation. And we also visualized the overall publication time and the distribution of data. Approximately 18% of reviews were published within one to 2 years, faster than the aims set by Campbell systematic review policies and guidelines, which was 2 years. However, more than 40% of the reviews were published more than 2 years after protocol publication. Furthermore, over 50% of included reviews were published with a time gap of more than 2 years after database searches. There was no significant difference between Campbell coordinating groups' median publication times and time gap from searches of databases to full review publication existed. However, the methods group only published one full review with almost a 3-year time gap from searches of databases to review publication. And there was a major difference between specific types of review. Systematic reviews had the longest median publication time of 2.4 years, whereas evidence and gap maps had the lowest median publication time of 13 months. Half of Campbell reviews were published more than 2 years after protocol publication. Furthermore, the median time from protocol publication to review publication varied widely depending on the specific type of review.
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.