Copublication improved the dissemination of Cochrane reviews and benefited copublishing journals: a retrospective cohort study

Yang, Jin-Lin; Zhang, Yu; Yang, Rong; Wu, Yang; Lei, Yi; Zhang, Yonggang; Liao, Xiaoyang; Clarke, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.016

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas we and others [4, 5] believe that co‐publications provide added value by bringing Cochrane reviews to the awareness of clinicians, guideline developers, and health policy decision‐makers who do not search the Cochrane Library and otherwise would not know about these reviews, there is the potential concern that co‐publications draw attention away from, and reduce the citation impact of, the actual reviews. This notion is hard to prove or disprove.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…A more recent study compared random sample of 101 co‐published Cochrane reviews across specialties with a 202 nonco‐published Cochrane reviews matched by year or publication and Editorial Group. [5] They found that Cochrane reviews with co‐publications had more citations than Cochrane reviews without co‐publication, which is a outcome, we intentionally did not analyze in our study since this finding seems expected: Cochrane editorial groups are likely to promote co‐publication of reviews of greatest clinical relevance and newsworthiness, which would also be expected to garner more citations. Based on their citation analysis, they also concluded that citations from co‐publications helped approximately one of four co‐publishing journals increase their impact factor.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Criteria adherence and citation impact of urologic Cochrane review co‐publications

Vasdev

Shakur

Dahm

2023

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Cochrane systematic reviews are widely recognized as authoritative sources of evidence. To improve dissemination and impact, editorial groups often encourage co‐publication of their reviews in other journals. Our study aimed to analyze urology‐relevant co‐publications and determine their adherence to Cochrane's four co‐publication criteria and impact using citation analysis Methods We systematically identified all Cochrane reviews published by the Urology, Incontinence, Renal, and Transplantation Groups from 1998 to 2021 as well as subsequent co‐publications using MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. We also determined adherence to Cochrane's four co‐publication criteria and analyzed citation rates. Results Of the 202 Cochrane reviews included, 52 (25.7%) had an associated co‐publication. The majority of the co‐publications corresponded to the Urology Group (39; 76.9%), followed by the Incontinence (9; 17.3%) and Kidney and Transplant Group (3; 5.8%). Only 21 (40.0%) co‐publications met all four co‐publication criteria, with the most common criteria not satisfied was inclusion of the word “Cochrane” in the co‐publication title (50% adherence). The proportion adhering to a subset of criteria significantly increased for reviews published between 2013 and 2021 compared to those from 1998 to 2012. Compared to corresponding Cochrane reviews, there was no significant difference in the number of citations of co‐publications across all sampled databases, although co‐publication citations were usually less than those of original reviews. Conclusion Approximately one in four urology‐related Cochrane reviews are co‐published. Though co‐publications garnered a considerable number of citations that could help in the dissemination of Cochrane reviews, many are not readily identifiable as such.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria adherence and citation impact of urologic Cochrane review co‐publications

Vasdev

Shakur

Dahm

2023

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…External stakeholders highlighted the need for reviews on minimally invasive treatments and desmopressin for lower urinary tract symptoms, for which there is a suite of Cochrane reviews [20,[22][23][24][25][26]. The CRG strategy for dissemination was co-publication of those reviews [22,[27][28][29], which has been shown to improve the impact of Cochrane reviews by reaching a highly specialized readership [30]. Moreover, both reviews have been cited in clinical practice guidelines.…”

Section: Final Editorial Prioritizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quick prioritization of Cochrane reviews on benign conditions of the prostate

Franco

Jung

Dahm

2023

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Benign conditions of the prostate include benign prostatic enlargement and prostatitis, which constitute an important cause of morbidity in men.Objective: We aimed to generate a list of priority topics of interest to our external stakeholders within our editorial scope.Methods: Following Cochrane's guidance, we developed a tiered approach for consulting internal and external stakeholders, including members from Urological societies. First, we analyzed our portfolio, including different impact measurements, to assess the need for updates. Then, following criteria related to the feasibility, novelty and relevance of prospective topics for evidence synthesis, we narrowed the list to a suite of titles for updates or new reviews.Results: Twelve editors provided initial feedback as to what the priorities were for updating existing reviews and for new reviews in our portfolio. The editors identified gaps in our portfolio, mainly covering new treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Then we consulted external stakeholders obtaining 30 responses from 14 countries. These stakeholders provided additional information about the relative importance of existing topics and suggested new ones. We identified that many of the latter were already covered in our portfolio, highlighting gaps in their dissemination. Finally, we narrowed down four priority topics that the editorial group will take forward and two additional topics that might need other considerations before being commissioned.Conclusions: Following Cochrane's guidance on priority setting, we identified topics relevant to our editors and external stakeholders by analysing our portfolio and two rounds of surveys. Moreover, we identified opportunities for disseminating existing reviews. Further evaluation is needed of the following up commissioning process for priority reviews.

show abstract

Copublication

Elston

2024

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Copublication improved the dissemination of Cochrane reviews and benefited copublishing journals: a retrospective cohort study

Cited by 6 publications

References 32 publications

Criteria adherence and citation impact of urologic Cochrane review co‐publications

Criteria adherence and citation impact of urologic Cochrane review co‐publications

Quick prioritization of Cochrane reviews on benign conditions of the prostate

Copublication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About