Article Text

Download PDFPDF

A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer
  1. Marius Goldkuhle1,
  2. Vikram M Narayan2,
  3. Aaron Weigl1,
  4. Philipp Dahm2,
  5. Nicole Skoetz1
  1. 1 Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  2. 2 Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System and Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  1. Correspondence to Marius Goldkuhle; marius.goldkuhle{at}uk-koeln.de

Abstract

Objective To compare cancer-related systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) and high-impact journals, with respect to type, content, quality and citation rates.

Design Methodological SR with assessment and comparison of SRs and meta-analyses. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-based extraction form. Both authors independently screened search results, extracted content-relevant characteristics and retrieved citation numbers of the included reviews using the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database.

Data sources Cancer-related SRs were retrieved from the CDSR, as well as from the 10 journals which publish oncological SRs and had the highest impact factors, using a comprehensive search in both the CDSR and MEDLINE.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included all cancer-related SRs and meta-analyses published from January 2011 to May 2016. Methodological SRs were excluded.

Results We included 346 applicable Cochrane reviews and 215 SRs from high-impact journals. Cochrane reviews consistently met more individual AMSTAR criteria, notably with regard to an a priori design (risk ratio (RR) 3.89; 95% CI 3.10 to 4.88), inclusion of the grey literature and trial registries (RR 3.52; 95% CI 2.84 to 4.37) in their searches, and the reporting of excluded studies (RR 8.80; 95% CI 6.06 to 12.78). Cochrane reviews were less likely to address questions of prognosis (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09), use individual patient data (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) or be based on non-randomised controlled trials (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09). Citation rates of Cochrane reviews were notably lower than those for high-impact journals (Cochrane reviews: mean number of citations 6.52 (range 0–143); high-impact journal SRs: 74.45 (0–652)).

Conclusions When comparing cancer-related SRs published in the CDSR versus those published in high-impact medical journals, Cochrane reviews were consistently of higher methodological quality, but cited less frequently.

  • methodological systematic review
  • amstar
  • quality assessment

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors MG designed the data collection tools and analysis, selected studies, analysed and extracted data, and drafted and revised the paper. VMN designed the data collection tools and analysis, selected studies, analysed and extracted data, and drafted and revised the paper. AW extracted and analysed the data and revised the paper. PD initiated the project, designed the data collection tools and analysis, selected studies, monitored data collection and analysis, and revised the paper. NS initiated the project, designed the data collection tools and analysis, selected studies, monitored data collection and analysis, and revised the paper. All authors approved the final version of the article.

  • Funding Two authors received travel grants by Cochrane to attend and present data at the 23rd Cochrane Colloquium in Seoul, 2016. This research received no other specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests MG, AW and NS are part of Cochrane Haematological Malignancies, PD is part of Cochrane Urology.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data available.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.