Use of inactive Cochrane reviews in academia: A citation analysis

被引:4
作者
Hoffmeyer, Bodil [1 ]
Fonnes, Siv [1 ]
Andresen, Kristoffer [1 ]
Rosenberg, Jacob [1 ]
机构
[1] Herlev Hosp, Dept Surg, Ctr Perioperat Optimizat, Herlev, Denmark
关键词
Knowledge diffusion; Cochrane; Systematic reviews; Bibliometrics; Citation analysis; Research quality; INFLATION;
D O I
10.1007/s11192-023-04691-9
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews is internationally recognized as one of the best sources of evidence within medical research. Nevertheless, a considerable amount of Cochrane reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) have not been updated for more than 5.5 years and are therefore considered inactive. This study's aim was to evaluate if these are still used in academia. The study included 7,729 Cochrane reviews from the CDSR. Their Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) were linked with citation data from the search engine The Lens. The citation pattern of 3,735 inactive reviews in the CDSR were analyzed and the results were adjusted for inflation in citation. A subgroup analysis of citing motives was performed for the most recent citations of the 20 most outdated reviews. In 2020, 41% of all citations of Cochrane reviews, were of reviews that had not been updated for more than 5.5. years. 5 years after last update, Cochrane reviews were on average cited 8.6 times per year. Twenty-five percent of Cochrane reviews were still cited 10 years after last update and were on average cited 4.3 times in the 10th year. None of the most recent citations of the 20 most outdated reviews indicated directly that the review was out of date. Cochrane reviews continued to be cited even though they were not being updated. This could pose a problem if they do not represent the most up-to-date evidence, as it may lead to the distribution of outdated evidence or misinformation.
引用
收藏
页码:2923 / 2934
页数:12
相关论文
共 35 条
  • [1] About The Lens, Lens scholarly API - Terms of use
  • [2] Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol
    Andersen, Mikkel Zola
    Gulen, Sengul
    Fonnes, Siv
    Andresen, Kristoffer
    Rosenberg, Jacob
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2020, 124 : 85 - 93
  • [3] The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
    Anker, Markus S.
    Hadzibegovic, Sara
    Lena, Alessia
    Haverkamp, Wilhelm
    [J]. ESC HEART FAILURE, 2019, 6 (06): : 1291 - 1312
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2022, Cochrane Database og Systematic Reviews: editorial policies. Updating Cochrane Reviews
  • [5] [Anonymous], DOI Handbook introduction, DOI doi_handbook/1_Introduction.
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2022, 2020 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition
  • [7] AU Library, Citations
  • [8] Post retraction citations in context: a case study
    Bar-Ilan, Judit
    Halevi, Gali
    [J]. SCIENTOMETRICS, 2017, 113 (01) : 547 - 565
  • [9] The quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing the treatment and management of male infertility
    Bhambhvani, Hriday P.
    Greenberg, Daniel R.
    Eisenberg, Michael L.
    [J]. ANDROLOGY, 2021, 9 (03) : 801 - 809
  • [10] Bornmann L, 2016, THEORIES OF INFORMETRICS AND SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION: A FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF BLAISE CRONIN, P347