Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are viewed as the best study design to guide clinical decision-making as they are the least biased publications assuming they are well-conducted and include well-designed studies. Cochrane was initiated in 1993 with an aim of conducting high-quality systematic reviews. We aimed to examine the publication rates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (henceforth referred to simply as "systematic reviews") and Cochrane reviews produced throughout Cochrane's existence and characterize changes throughout the period. METHODS: This observational study collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993 and 2022 in PubMed. Identified Cochrane reviews were linked to data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via their Digital Object Identifier. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews were analyzed separately. Two authors screened a random sample of records to validate the overall sample, providing a precision of 98%. RESULTS: We identified 231,602 (94%) systematic reviews and 15,038 (6%) Cochrane reviews. Publication of systematic reviews has continuously increased with a median yearly increase rate of 26%, while publication of Cochrane reviews has decreased since 2015. From 1993 to 2002, Cochrane reviews constituted 35% of all systematic reviews in PubMed compared with 3.5% in 2013-2022. Systematic reviews consistently had fewer authors than Cochrane reviews, but the number of authors increased over time for both. Chinese first authors conducted 15% and 4% of systematic reviews published from 2013-2022 and 2003-2012, respectively. Most Cochrane reviews had first authors from the UK (36%). The native English-speaking countries the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia produced a large share of systematic reviews (42%) and Cochrane reviews (62%). The largest publishers of systematic reviews in the last 10 years were gold open access journals. CONCLUSIONS: Publication of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly, while fewer Cochrane reviews have been published through the last decade. Native English-speaking countries produced a large proportion of both types of systematic reviews. Gold open access journals and Chinese first authors dominated the publication of systematic reviews for the past 10 years. More research is warranted examining why fewer Cochrane reviews are being published. Additionally, examining these systematic reviews for research waste metrics may provide a clearer picture of their utility.

Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The number of published journal articles has grown exponentially during the last 30 years, which may have led to some wasteful research. However, the terminology associated with research waste remains unclear. To address this, we aimed to identify, define, and categorize the aspects of research waste in published biomedical reports. METHODS: In this scoping review, we systematically searched for biomedical literature reports from 1993 to 2023 in two databases, focusing on those addressing and defining research waste. Through data charting, we analyzed and categorized the aspects of research waste. RESULTS: Based on 4285 initial records in the searches, a total of 832 reports were included in the analysis. The included reports were primarily narrative reviews (26%) and original reports (21%). We categorized research waste into five aspects: methodological, invisible, negligible, underreported, and structural (MINUS) research waste. More than half of the reports (56%) covered methodological research waste concerning flaws in study design, study conduct, or analysis. Invisible research waste covered nonpublication, discontinuation, and lack of data-sharing. Negligible research waste primarily concerned unnecessary repetition, for example, stemming from the absence of preceding a trial with a systematic review of the literature. Underreported research waste mainly included poor reporting, resulting in a lack of transparency. Structural research waste comprised inadequate management, collaboration, prioritization, implementation, and dissemination. CONCLUSION: MINUS encapsulates the five main aspects of research waste. Recognizing these aspects of research waste is important for addressing and preventing further research waste and thereby ensuring efficient resource allocation and scientific integrity.

[Christmas article: Flying fattens and swimming slims - the secret of the mermaid].

INTRODUCTION We aimed to investigate how, changes in atmospheric pressure influence the human body. METHODS The study was an observational study, reported according to the STROBE-guideline (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology). Participants had their abdominal circumference measured on ground level, at the bottom of a pool, and during flight. This was used to investigate the relationship between atmospheric pressure and abdominal circumference. RESULTS We included 17 participants for the flight study and 12 participants for the pool study. Flying increased abdominal circumference from median 82 cm (range: 72-117 cm) at ground level to 86 cm (74-122 cm) in flight, p = 0.001. Submersion in water caused a decrease in abdominal circumference from median 82 cm (70-116 cm) at ground level to 79 cm (67-114 cm) under water, p = 0.003. Furthermore, flying resulted in a significant increase in self-reported flatulence and bloating from median 27 (0-69) to 50 (0-93), p = 0.02 (scale 0-100). Flying also caused an increase in abdominal pain from median 0 (0-68) to 3 (0-70), p = 0.02 (scale: 0-100). CONCLUSION Our findings confirm that changes to environment and thereby atmospheric pressure, influence abdominal circumference. This is likely due to expansion and compression of bowel gasses related to the ambient atmospheric pressure. Interestingly, our findings may help explain the physical appearance of mermaids. FUNDING none. TRIAL REGISTRATION none.

Most Cochrane reviews have not been updated for more than 5 years.

AIM: Cochrane reviews are internationally recognized for their high quality, but to reduce the risk of transmitting misleading information, they must be kept up to date. The aim of this study was to quantify the number of reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) that have not been updated for more than five years and to characterize them. METHOD: This study was reported closely adapted to the STROBE guidelines. Information about all reviews in the CDSR was extracted in August 2020. Based on a previous study, we defined inactive reviews as reviews with no update in "What's New" or no publication of a new version of the review within the last 5.5 years. The inactive reviews were quantified and characterized and results were visualized through tables and charts. RESULTS: The study included 7931 reviews from the CDSR. The median age of all reviews in the CDSR was 5.3 years. Fifty-five percent were published for the first time between 1996 and February 2015 and 88% of these had been inactive for 5.5 years or more. Among these, 89% were first publication of the review that had never been updated afterward. CONCLUSION: More than half of the Cochrane reviews in CDSR were first published before 2015 and only 12% of these were still active. In order to retain their validity, it would be preferable if Cochrane reviews were kept up to date by the authors either by an update in "What's New" or by publishing a new version of the review.

Time from submission to publication varied widely for biomedical journals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Fast dissemination of research is important for improving treatments and thus benefitting patients, caregivers, and researchers. However, getting scientific papers published may take a long time. The editorial handling time can be delayed by several processes both before and after acceptance of the paper. The aim of this study was to systematically review the editorial handling time of biomedical peer-reviewed literature (i.e. time from submission to publication). METHODS: The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020196238). PubMed and EMBASE were searched systematically on 29 May 2020. We included publications on the timespan between submission and publication for accepted articles published in biomedical journals. RESULTS: Of the 4197 unique studies identified in the search, 69 were included in the systematic review. The mean timespan from submission to publication varied from 91 to 639 days, while the median timespan varied from 70 to 558 days. Submission to acceptance and acceptance to publication timespans showed similar disparity with means ranging from 50 to 276 and 11 to 362 days, respectively. Data were too statistically heterogeneous to perform meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Editorial handling times of journals varied widely from a few months to almost two years, which delays the availability of new evidence. The editorial handling time did not differ between submission-to-acceptance-time and acceptance-to-publication-time. Examining differences in editorial processes between journals with long and short editorial handling times may help uncover, which processes are frequent causes of delay and thereby where to improve.

Group authorships in Cochrane had low compliance with Cochrane recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: Recently, group authorships have become more common. Group authorship describes a situation where the name of a group of people is included in the byline of an article. Historically, however, group authorships have been associated with citation errors and difficulties identifying who could be regarded as an author. Cochrane is a collaboration that publishes high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses and transparency in authorship should be high. Group authorships in Cochrane have not previously been examined. This study aimed to describe group authorships in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). METHODS: In total, 8396 reviews from the CDSR were screened for group authorships from inception to 31 December 2019. Data from group authorships were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 41 reviews with group authorships were included. Almost half of group authorships (46%, 19/41) were published from 2015 to 2019. Median number of group members was 32 (range 6-91). Median publication time (protocol to review) of group authorships was 3.1 years. Of all group authorships, 39% met ICMJE's first authorship criterion, 41% met the second, and 12% met the third criterion. For only two studies all authors met the three authorship criteria. CONCLUSION: A low prevalence of group authorships existed in Cochrane reviews. Reviews with group authorships took median three years to publish, and very few of group authorships in Cochrane complied with the ICMJE authorship criteria.

Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to examine the time from publication of the protocol for a Cochrane review to publication of the Cochrane review for the entire Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Cochrane reviews from the CDSR published between 1995 and 2019 were assessed. Characteristics of the reviews were extracted, and time from publication of protocol to publication of review was calculated. These times were grouped for relevant characteristics and visualized through charts and tables to illustrate trends. RESULTS: Of the total 8,201 reviews in the CDSR, 6,764 were included. The median publication time was 2 years (range 0 days to 21.7 years). Reviews that were published more than 5 years after the protocol made up 11% of all included reviews, whereas 19% of reviews were published within a year. The median publication time for the individual Cochrane Review Groups ranged from 15 to 39 months. CONCLUSION: Half of Cochrane reviews were published later than Cochrane's aim of 2 years. Furthermore, the Cochrane Review Groups' median times from publication of protocol to publication of review varied widely.