Universität zu Köln

Goldkuhle, Marius, Narayan, Vikram M., Weigl, Aaron, Dahm, Philipp and Skoetz, Nicole (2018). A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer. BMJ Open, 8 (3). LONDON: BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP. ISSN 2044-6055

Full text not available from this repository.

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.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID ORCID Put Code Goldkuhle, Marius UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Narayan, Vikram M. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Weigl, Aaron UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Dahm, Philipp UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Skoetz, Nicole UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED
URN:	urn:nbn:de:hbz:38-193162
DOI:	10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020869
Journal or Publication Title:	BMJ Open
Volume:	8
Number:	3
Date:	2018
Publisher:	BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
Place of Publication:	LONDON
ISSN:	2044-6055
Language:	English
Faculty:	Unspecified
Divisions:	Unspecified
Subjects:	no entry
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Keywords Language QUALITY-OF-LIFE; METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; MEASUREMENT TOOL; TRIALS; AMSTAR; METAANALYSES; SURROGATE; SURVIVAL Multiple languages Medicine, General & Internal Multiple languages
Refereed:	Yes
URI:	http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/id/eprint/19316