Managing the production of a Cochrane systematic review
Baker, Philip R.A., Francis, Daniel, Hall, Blinda J., Doyle, Jodie, & Armstrong, Rebecca (2010) Managing the production of a Cochrane systematic review. Journal of Public Health, 32(3), pp. 448-450.
|
Published Version
(PDF 145kB)
|
View at publisher (open access)
Abstract
Undertaking a Cochrane systematic review can be an incredibly rewarding experience. It is however a challenging and time-consuming task. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions1 provides an essential resource to help reviewers navigate the often complex methodological issues of systematic review research. Additional guidelines have been developed for those undertaking reviews of public health topics,2 and Cochrane Centres throughout the world offer invaluable training opportunities. This emphasis on training and methodological rigour has helped Cochrane reviews become one of the most respected sources of synthesized research available.
Even with the assistance available, however, many authors with good intentions register titles and prepare protocols but fail to publish the completed review. Data extracted from Cochrane’s Information Management System (Archie) in June 2010 showed that there were 1,301 titles registered more than two years ago that have not been published as a full review.3 Of these registered titles, 697 have had protocols published (25 are no longer active) while 604 have not even progressed to this stage (154 are no longer active). There are also 146 protocols that have been published for more than two years without being converted into completed reviews. These registered titles and protocols that have not yet progressed to a completed review represent a significant amount of time and energy invested by review authors, Cochrane editorial staff and, in some cases, external referees...
Impact and interest:
Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloads:
Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX
Repository Staff Only: item control page