ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2023
Criteria adherence and citation impact of urologic Cochrane review co-publications.
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2023. 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.
- Criteria adherence and citation impact of urologic Cochrane review co-publications.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cochrane systematic reviews are widely recognized as authoritative sources of evidence. To improve dissemination and impact, editorial groups often encourage co-publication of their reviews in other journals. Our study aimed to analyze urology-relevant co-publications and determine their adherence to Cochrane's four co-publication criteria and impact using citation analysis. Methods: We systematically identified all Cochrane reviews published by the Urology, Incontinence, Renal, and Transplantation Groups from 1998 to 2021 as well as subsequent co-publications using MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. We also determined adherence to Cochrane's four co-publication criteria and analyzed citation rates. Results: Of the 202 Cochrane reviews included, 52 (25.7%) had an associated co-publication. The majority of the co-publications corresponded to the Urology Group (39; 76.9%), followed by the Incontinence (9; 17.3%) and Kidney and Transplant Group (3; 5.8%). Only 21 (40.0%) co-publications met all four co-publication criteria, with the most common criteria not satisfied was inclusion of the word "Cochrane" in the co-publication title (50% adherence). The proportion adhering to a subset of criteria significantly increased for reviews published between 2013 and 2021 compared to those from 1998 to 2012. Compared to corresponding Cochrane reviews, there was no significant difference in the number of citations of co-publications across all sampled databases, although co-publication citations were usually less than those of original reviews. Conclusion: Approximately one in four urology-related Cochrane reviews are co-published. Though co-publications garnered a considerable number of citations that could help in the dissemination of Cochrane reviews, many are not readily identifiable as such.
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.