IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i5d10.1007_s11192-023-04691-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of inactive Cochrane reviews in academia: A citation analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Bodil Hoffmeyer

    (Herlev Hospital)

  • Siv Fonnes

    (Herlev Hospital)

  • Kristoffer Andresen

    (Herlev Hospital)

  • Jacob Rosenberg

    (Herlev Hospital)

Abstract

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews is internationally recognized as one of the best sources of evidence within medical research. Nevertheless, a considerable amount of Cochrane reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) have not been updated for more than 5.5 years and are therefore considered inactive. This study’s aim was to evaluate if these are still used in academia. The study included 7,729 Cochrane reviews from the CDSR. Their Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) were linked with citation data from the search engine The Lens. The citation pattern of 3,735 inactive reviews in the CDSR were analyzed and the results were adjusted for inflation in citation. A subgroup analysis of citing motives was performed for the most recent citations of the 20 most outdated reviews. In 2020, 41% of all citations of Cochrane reviews, were of reviews that had not been updated for more than 5.5. years. 5 years after last update, Cochrane reviews were on average cited 8.6 times per year. Twenty-five percent of Cochrane reviews were still cited 10 years after last update and were on average cited 4.3 times in the 10th year. None of the most recent citations of the 20 most outdated reviews indicated directly that the review was out of date. Cochrane reviews continued to be cited even though they were not being updated. This could pose a problem if they do not represent the most up-to-date evidence, as it may lead to the distribution of outdated evidence or misinformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Bodil Hoffmeyer & Siv Fonnes & Kristoffer Andresen & Jacob Rosenberg, 2023. "Use of inactive Cochrane reviews in academia: A citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2923-2934, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04691-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04691-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04691-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-023-04691-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew J Page & Larissa Shamseer & Douglas G Altman & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Margaret Sampson & Andrea C Tricco & Ferrán Catalá-López & Lun Li & Emma K Reid & Rafael Sarkis-Onofre & David Moher, 2016. "Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-30, May.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz, 2015. "Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2215-2222, November.
    3. Michael Gusenbauer, 2019. "Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 177-214, January.
    4. Petersen, Alexander M. & Pan, Raj K. & Pammolli, Fabio & Fortunato, Santo, 2019. "Methods to account for citation inflation in research evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1855-1865.
    5. Stuart G Nicholls & Pauline Quach & Erik von Elm & Astrid Guttmann & David Moher & Irene Petersen & Henrik T Sørensen & Liam Smeeth & Sinéad M Langan & Eric I Benchimol, 2015. "The REporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement: Methods for Arriving at Consensus and Developing Reporting Guidelines," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    6. Pan, Raj K. & Petersen, Alexander M. & Pammolli, Fabio & Fortunato, Santo, 2018. "The memory of science: Inflation, myopia, and the knowledge network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 656-678.
    7. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2017. "Post retraction citations in context: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 547-565, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeppe Nicolaisen & Tove Faber Frandsen, 2021. "Number of references: a large-scale study of interval ratios," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 259-285, January.
    2. Edré Moreira & Wagner Meira & Marcos André Gonçalves & Alberto H. F. Laender, 2023. "The rise of hyperprolific authors in computer science: characterization and implications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2945-2974, May.
    3. Gerson Pech & Catarina Delgado, 2020. "Percentile and stochastic-based approach to the comparison of the number of citations of articles indexed in different bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 223-252, April.
    4. Esther Maassen & Marcel A L M van Assen & Michèle B Nuijten & Anton Olsson-Collentine & Jelte M Wicherts, 2020. "Reproducibility of individual effect sizes in meta-analyses in psychology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, May.
    5. Debarshi Kumar Sanyal & Plaban Kumar Bhowmick & Partha Pratim Das & Samiran Chattopadhyay & T. Y. S. S. Santosh, 2019. "Enhancing access to scholarly publications with surrogate resources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 1129-1164, November.
    6. Marian R. Chertow & Koichi S. Kanaoka & Jooyoung Park, 2021. "Tracking the diffusion of industrial symbiosis scholarship using bibliometrics: Comparing across Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(4), pages 913-931, August.
    7. Petersen, Alexander M., 2019. "Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    8. Katchanov, Yurij L. & Markova, Yulia V. & Shmatko, Natalia A., 2023. "Uncited papers in the structure of scientific communication," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    9. Batista-Jr, Antônio de Abreu & Gouveia, Fábio Castro & Mena-Chalco, Jesús P., 2021. "Predicting the Q of junior researchers using data from the first years of publication," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    10. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    11. Liu, Xiaojuan & Wang, Chenlin & Chen, Dar-Zen & Huang, Mu-Hsuan, 2022. "Exploring perception of retraction based on mentioned status in post-retraction citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    12. Ramona Weinrich, 2019. "Opportunities for the Adoption of Health-Based Sustainable Dietary Patterns: A Review on Consumer Research of Meat Substitutes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-15, July.
    13. Piers Steel & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Herman Aguinis, 2021. "The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(1), pages 23-44, February.
    14. Dunaiski, Marcel & Geldenhuys, Jaco & Visser, Willem, 2019. "On the interplay between normalisation, bias, and performance of paper impact metrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 270-290.
    15. Norma Salgado-Orellana & Emilio Berrocal de-Luna & Calixto Gutiérrez-Braojos, 2021. "A scientometric study of doctoral theses on the Roma in the Iberian Peninsula during the 1977–2018 period," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 437-458, January.
    16. Augusteijn, Hilde Elisabeth Maria & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2021. "Posterior Probabilities of Effect Sizes and Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis: An Intuitive Approach of Dealing with Publication Bias," OSF Preprints avkgj, Center for Open Science.
    17. Ruhua Huang & Yuting Huang & Fan Qi & Leyi Shi & Baiyang Li & Wei Yu, 2022. "Exploring the characteristics of special issues: distribution, topicality, and citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5233-5256, September.
    18. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    19. Johannes Stübinger & Lucas Schneider, 2020. "Understanding Smart City—A Data-Driven Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-23, October.
    20. You, Taekho & Park, Jinseo & Lee, June Young & Yun, Jinhyuk & Jung, Woo-Sung, 2022. "Disturbance of questionable publishing to academia," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04691-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.