ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Publication lag in interventional, RCT-based meta-analyses within top-tier general medical journals and the CDSR: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
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
Introduction: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses serve as the cornerstone of clinical guidelines, yet their validity hinges on the currency of the included evidence. The publication lag measured as the interval from the last search date to online publication remains unclear in top-tier general medical journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Existing data are largely outdated and lack exploration of associated factors. Our study aims to fill this gap by quantifying the current publication lag in top-tier general medical journals and the CDSR and identifying its independent predictors. Methods: This meta-epidemiological study will analyze interventional, RCT-based meta-analyses published in top-tier general medical journals and the CDSR between 2023 and 2025. We will calculate the publication lag, assess compliance with AMSTAR 2 timeliness standards, and compare the performance between top-tier general medical journals and the CDSR. Multivariable regression analysis will be employed to determine independent factors which associated with the extent of publication delay. Discussion: Our study will systematically quantify the current status and determinants of publication lag in top-tier general medical journals and the CDSR. While our reliance on publicly available dates precludes a granular distinction between author-related revisions and editorial processing durations, this limitation may introduce information bias. Specifically, if certain journals attract more complex reviews requiring extensive author revisions, the observed lag may overstate editorial inefficiency. Conversely, high-performance editorial workflows might mask prolonged author delays. By acknowledging these potential directions of bias, our findings will provide a more nuanced, actionable framework for assessing evidence currency. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/cjtk.
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.