Co-publishing Cochrane Library systematic reviews: journal editor and Cochrane Skin Group author experiences

Greene, Richard E.; Freeman, Scott R.; Lundahl, Kristy; Dellavalle, Robert P.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08552.x

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We do not know the reason for the relatively low percentage; despite co-publication agreements with many journals, many authors (and even editors) may not be aware of them. Following a survey of authors and editors in the field of dermatology, Cochrane authors recommended that authors of CSRs who wish to co-publish their reviews ‘minimize frustration’ by first considering journals that have co-published other Cochrane reviews [3]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Editors also may be a factor in co-publication. A 2008 survey of dermatology journal editors found that most (6/11) editors who had co-published Cochrane reviews believed that co-publication of the review could increase their journal’s impact factor [3]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the Cochrane Skin Group, which has co-published about one third of their CSRs, encourages the practice [3]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cochrane systematic reviews and co-publication: dissemination of evidence on interventions for ophthalmic conditions

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSystematic reviews of interventions provide a summary of the evidence available on intervention effectiveness and harm. Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) have been published electronically in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) since 1994, and co-publication (publication of a Cochrane review in another journal) has been allowed since that time, as long as the co-publishing journal has agreed to the arrangement. Although standards for co-publication were established in 2008, the frequency of co-publication and adherence to the standards have remained largely unexamined. Our objective was to examine the frequency of co-publication of Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group (CEVG) reviews, adherence to the co-publication policy, the relative numbers of citations of the two modes of publishing, and differences in times cited in CSRs with and without a co-publication.MethodsWe identified all CEVG reviews published by May 30, 2014 in The Cochrane Library. Using keywords from the title, author names, and “Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group”, we searched Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify possible co-publications. We also emailed contact authors of all identified CEVG reviews to ask them whether they had published their CSR elsewhere. We compared each co-publication to the corresponding CEVG review for adherence to the Cochrane Policy Manual (dated June 10, 2014). We recorded the number of times each CEVG review and each co-publication had been cited by others according to Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus, as of June 11, 2014.ResultsWe identified 117 CEVG reviews;19 had been co-published in 22 articles. Adherence to Cochrane policy on co-publication was moderate, with all authors complying with at least one of four requirements we addressed. Co-publications were cited more often than the corresponding CEVG reviews; CEVG reviews with at least one co-publication were cited approximately twice as often as CEVG reviews without a co-publication. The number of citations varied considerably depending on whether the CEVG review had a co-publication or not.ConclusionsThe findings support encouraging co-publication while maintaining the primacy of the Cochrane systematic review. Support for co-publication may be tempered by other factors such as the possibility that CEVG reviews with a co-publication covered more clinically important and timely topics than those without a co-publication. Assuming that citations are a valid measure of dissemination effectiveness, the 15-year CEVG experience with co-publication of systematic reviews suggests that Cochrane authors should be encouraged to co-publish in traditional medical journals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0104-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cochrane systematic reviews and co-publication: dissemination of evidence on interventions for ophthalmic conditions

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We used weighted mean difference with random effects model to avoid heterogeneity, in line with the previously published guidelines for statistical reporting and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [ 11 , 12 ]. Heterogeneity was considered significant at P<0.10 [ 13 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Efficacy of Stem Cell Therapy for Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStem cell therapy is a promising therapeutic modality for advanced diabetes mellitus (DM). This study presents a meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials to determine the efficacy of stem cell therapy in DM. We aim to critically evaluate and synthesize clinical evidence on the safety and efficiency of different types of stem cell therapy for both T1DM and T2DM.Methods and FindingsWe pooled participant-level data from twenty-two eligible clinical trials that satisfied our inclusion criteria, with a total of 524 patients. There were significant differences in the outcome based on the type and source of the infused cells. Out of all T1DM patients who received CD34+ hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) infusion, 58.9% became insulin independent for a mean period of 16 months, whereas the results were uniformly negative in patients who received umbilical cord blood (UCB). Infusion of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (UC-MSCs) provided significantly beneficial outcome in T1DM, when compared to bone-marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs) (P<0.0001 and P = 0.1557). Administration of stem cell therapy early after DM diagnosis was more effective than intervention at later stages (relative risk = 2.0, P = 0.0008). Adverse effects were observed in only 21.72% of both T1DM and T2DM stem cell recipients with no reported mortality. Out of all poor responders, 79.5% were diagnosed with diabetic ketoacidosis.ConclusionsStem cell transplantation can represent a safe and effective treatment for selected patients with DM. In this cohort of trials, the best therapeutic outcome was achieved with CD34+ HSC therapy for T1DM, while the poorest outcome was observed with HUCB for T1DM. Diabetic ketoacidosis impedes therapeutic efficacy.

show abstract

“…SRs using state-of-the-art methodology can take several years to complete. To foster dissemination, SRs are sometimes copublished in shorter formats in academic journals (Greene et al, 2008) and SRs are frequently cited in professional medical academy clinical practice guidelines ( Table 2). The DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) (http:// www.crd.york.ac.uk/CMS2Web/AboutDare.asp, accessed 9 July 2011) compiles the abstracts of high-quality SRs.…”

Section: Part 2: Srs and Dermatologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Growth of Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews in Informing Dermatological Patient Care

Williams

Dellavalle

2012

Journal of Investigative Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Randomized controlled clinical trials remain the best method for minimizing bias when evaluating dermatological treatments. Many dermatologic clinical trials have suffered from small sample sizes, selective reporting of outcomes, publication bias, poor reporting, and heterogeneous outcomes that have hampered comparability-deficiencies that can be overcome by adopting good trial planning and reporting practice encouraged by this journal. Although a profusion of explanatory placebo-controlled studies have contributed little to decision making in the clinical setting, some comparative effectiveness trials such as the use of topical corticosteroids for pemphigoid may have played a pivotal role in improving the well-being of dermatological patients. Systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials strive to organize the entire body of evidence while minimizing bias so that policy makers and guideline developers can base their recommendations on the appropriate strength and level of evidence. In dermatology, SRs, such as those undertaken by the Cochrane Collaboration, have produced clear clinical messages despite conflicting individual studies, and also play a key role in identifying research gaps. Future challenges include optimizing the use of research resources, adopting methodological developments in health technology assessment, and prospective registration and complete reporting of all study results.

show abstract

Co-publishing Cochrane Library systematic reviews: journal editor and Cochrane Skin Group author experiences

Cited by 6 publications

References 6 publications

Cochrane systematic reviews and co-publication: dissemination of evidence on interventions for ophthalmic conditions

Cochrane systematic reviews and co-publication: dissemination of evidence on interventions for ophthalmic conditions

Clinical Efficacy of Stem Cell Therapy for Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis

The Growth of Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews in Informing Dermatological Patient Care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About