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 A subgroup analysis of citing motives was performed for the most recent citations of the 20 most outdated reviews.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 None of the most recent citations of the 20 most outdated reviews indicated directly that the review was out of date.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This could pose a problem if they do not represent the most up-to-date evidence, as it may lead to the distribution of outdated evidence or misinformation.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
  • [11] Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references
    Bornmann, Lutz
    Mutz, Ruediger
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2015, 66 (11) : 2215 - 2222
  • [12] The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research
    Bunn, Frances
    Trivedi, Daksha
    Alderson, Phil
    Hamilton, Laura
    Martin, Alice
    Pinkney, Emma
    Iliffe, Steve
    [J]. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2015, 19 (28) : 1 - +
  • [13] Cochrane Library, 2000, Cochrane reviews
  • [14] Eden J., 2021, Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews
  • [15] A taxonomy of motives to cite
    Erikson, Martin G.
    Erlandson, Peter
    [J]. SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, 2014, 44 (04) : 625 - 637
  • [16] Galiani S., 2017, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, V23447, DOI [10.3386/w23447, DOI 10.3386/W23447]
  • [18] Higgins JP, 2019, Cochrane Hand- book for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
  • [19] Most Cochrane reviews have not been updated for more than 5 years
    Hoffmeyer, Bodil Dalsgaard
    Andersen, Mikkel Zola
    Fonnes, Siv
    Rosenberg, Jacob
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE, 2021, 14 (03) : 181 - 184
  • [20] Jefferson O. A., The Lens MetaRecord and LensID: An open identifier system for aggregated metadata and versioning of knowledge artefacts