Hartling Lisa, Shave Kassi, Thomson Denise, Fernandes Ricardo M, Wingert Aireen, Williams Katrina
Cochrane Child Health, University of Alberta, ECHA 4-472, 11405-87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada.
Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, ECHA 4-472, 11405-87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada.
Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 21;5(1):104. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0276-7.
Cochrane Child Health maintains a register of child-relevant Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a comprehensive source of high-quality evidence. However, a large number of SRs are published outside of The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane), impacting the comprehensiveness of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). We surveyed authors who published child-relevant SRs with Cochrane and elsewhere in the medical literature to (1) understand their experiences in preparing and publishing SRs and (2) identify factors influencing choice of publication venue.
We identified SRs published in the CDSR for the most recent complete year prior to our study (2013; n = 145). We searched the medical literature and randomly selected the same number of SRs published the same year. We developed an internet-based survey and contacted the corresponding author of each review via email. Data were analyzed descriptively. Qualitative analysis elicited common themes from open-ended questions.
Seventy-six (26 %) responded: 41 % Cochrane, 42 % non-Cochrane, and 17 % published in both venues. Among respondents who published their SR in both venues (n = 13), 46 % found it easier to publish in a non-Cochrane journal, 15 % easier with Cochrane, and 31 % similar. Main reasons for conducting SRs with Cochrane (n = 44) were Cochrane's positive reputation (82 %) and good impact factor (66 %). Among respondents who published their SR in a non-Cochrane journal (n = 32), most frequent reasons for not conducting their SR with Cochrane were time required to follow Cochrane processes (25 %), lack of knowledge about how to conduct an SR with Cochrane (19 %), administrative processes (16 %), and perception that non-Cochrane journals yielded more interest (16 %). Among respondents who published their SR in a non-Cochrane journal (n = 32), 78 % did not register their review and 22 % did not prepare a protocol.
Key reasons for publishing in Cochrane are its positive reputation and impact factor. Reasons for publishing in non-Cochrane sources include lack of familiarity or challenges with the Cochrane processes and desire to publish in a source more directly relevant to the topic of interest. End users looking for evidence in the form of SRs need to be aware that there is a vast number of SRs published across the medical literature. Efforts to optimize the identification of SRs in non-Cochrane sources (e.g., through effective labeling or protocol/review registration) and their content will help end users find the necessary synthesized evidence to support clinical practice.
Cochrane儿童健康组织维护了一个与儿童相关的Cochrane系统评价（SRs）登记册，以提供高质量证据的全面来源。然而，大量的SRs是在Cochrane协作网（Cochrane）之外发表的，这影响了《Cochrane系统评价数据库》（CDSR）的全面性。我们对在Cochrane以及医学文献其他地方发表与儿童相关SRs的作者进行了调查，以（1）了解他们在准备和发表SRs方面的经历，以及（2）确定影响发表渠道选择的因素。
我们确定了在我们研究前最近完整一年（2013年）发表在CDSR上的SRs（n = 145）。我们检索了医学文献，并随机选择了同年发表的相同数量的SRs。我们开发了一个基于网络的调查问卷，并通过电子邮件联系了每篇综述的通讯作者。对数据进行描述性分析。定性分析从开放式问题中提炼出共同主题。
76人（26%）回复：41%来自Cochrane，42%来自非Cochrane，17%在两个渠道都发表过。在两个渠道都发表过SRs的受访者（n = 13）中，46%的人发现发表在非Cochrane期刊上更容易，15%的人认为在Cochrane发表更容易，31%的人认为两者差不多。在与Cochrane合作进行SRs的受访者（n = 44）中，主要原因是Cochrane的良好声誉（82%）和高影响因子（66%）。在非Cochrane期刊上发表SRs的受访者（n = 32）中，不与Cochrane合作进行SRs的最常见原因是遵循Cochrane流程所需的时间（25%）、缺乏关于如何与Cochrane进行SRs的知识（19%）、行政流程（16%）以及认为非Cochrane期刊更受关注（16%）。在非Cochrane期刊上发表SRs的受访者（n = 32）中，78%没有对他们的综述进行注册，22%没有制定方案。
在Cochrane发表的主要原因是其良好声誉和影响因子。在非Cochrane来源发表的原因包括对Cochrane流程不熟悉或有挑战，以及希望在与感兴趣主题更直接相关的来源发表。寻找SRs形式证据的最终用户需要意识到，医学文献中发表了大量的SRs。优化在非Cochrane来源中识别SRs（例如，通过有效的标注或方案/综述注册）及其内容的努力将有助于最终用户找到支持临床实践所需的综合证据。
