Vasdev Ranveer, Shakur Zahrah, Dahm Philipp
School of Medicine University of Minnesota Twin Cities Minneapolis Minnesota USA.
Cochrane Urology Group Minneapolis Minnesota USA.
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2023 Mar 27;1(2):e12004. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12004. eCollection 2023 Apr.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cochrane系统评价被广泛认为是权威的证据来源。为了提高传播范围和影响力，编辑团队经常鼓励在其他期刊上共同发表他们的评价。我们的研究旨在分析与泌尿外科相关的共同发表情况，并使用引文分析确定其是否符合Cochrane的四项共同发表标准及其影响力。
我们使用MEDLINE、Web of Science、Scopus和谷歌学术数据库，系统地识别了1998年至2021年期间泌尿外科、尿失禁、肾脏和移植小组发表的所有Cochrane评价以及随后的共同发表情况。我们还确定了是否符合Cochrane的四项共同发表标准，并分析了引用率。
在纳入的202篇Cochrane评价中，52篇（25.7%）有相关的共同发表。大多数共同发表对应于泌尿外科小组（39篇；76.9%），其次是尿失禁小组（9篇；17.3%）和肾脏与移植小组（3篇；5.8%）。只有21篇（40.0%）共同发表符合所有四项共同发表标准，最常未满足的标准是共同发表标题中包含“Cochrane”一词（符合率为50%）。与1998年至2012年发表的评价相比，2013年至2021年发表的评价符合部分标准的比例显著增加。与相应的Cochrane评价相比，所有抽样数据库中共同发表的引用次数没有显著差异，尽管共同发表的引用次数通常少于原始评价。
大约四分之一与泌尿外科相关的Cochrane评价是共同发表的。虽然共同发表获得了相当数量的引用，这有助于Cochrane评价的传播，但许多共同发表并不容易被识别出来。
