Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are viewed as the best study design to guide clinical decision-making as they are the least biased publications assuming they are well-conducted and include well-designed studies. Cochrane was initiated in 1993 with an aim of conducting high-quality systematic reviews. We aimed to examine the publication rates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (henceforth referred to simply as "systematic reviews") and Cochrane reviews produced throughout Cochrane's existence and characterize changes throughout the period. METHODS: This observational study collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993 and 2022 in PubMed. Identified Cochrane reviews were linked to data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via their Digital Object Identifier. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews were analyzed separately. Two authors screened a random sample of records to validate the overall sample, providing a precision of 98%. RESULTS: We identified 231,602 (94%) systematic reviews and 15,038 (6%) Cochrane reviews. Publication of systematic reviews has continuously increased with a median yearly increase rate of 26%, while publication of Cochrane reviews has decreased since 2015. From 1993 to 2002, Cochrane reviews constituted 35% of all systematic reviews in PubMed compared with 3.5% in 2013-2022. Systematic reviews consistently had fewer authors than Cochrane reviews, but the number of authors increased over time for both. Chinese first authors conducted 15% and 4% of systematic reviews published from 2013-2022 and 2003-2012, respectively. Most Cochrane reviews had first authors from the UK (36%). The native English-speaking countries the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia produced a large share of systematic reviews (42%) and Cochrane reviews (62%). The largest publishers of systematic reviews in the last 10 years were gold open access journals. CONCLUSIONS: Publication of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly, while fewer Cochrane reviews have been published through the last decade. Native English-speaking countries produced a large proportion of both types of systematic reviews. Gold open access journals and Chinese first authors dominated the publication of systematic reviews for the past 10 years. More research is warranted examining why fewer Cochrane reviews are being published. Additionally, examining these systematic reviews for research waste metrics may provide a clearer picture of their utility.

The Alvarado Score Is the Most Impactful Diagnostic Tool for Appendicitis: A Bibliometric Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this bibliometric analysis was to investigate the citation pattern of studies that have developed a diagnostic tool to diagnose appendicitis. METHODS: We investigated characteristics of citations, publication frequency, evolution of citations, and fluctuation of previously highly cited studies. We analyzed which studies had been cited in the method section and identified impactful studies in this research field by a network visualization. We analyzed the differences in citations between diagnostic tools requiring a doctor to be present against the diagnostic tools not requiring doctors to be present, English language studies against non-English studies, and identified diagnostic tools targeting children. RESULTS: There was an upward trend in publications in this research field, and between 1999-2021 the Alvarado score has been cited the most. In general, there was a high fluctuation, and 40 studies had been cited in the methods sections. There were significant differences in studies regarding diagnostic tools written in English compared to non-English studies, with more citations in the English-language studies. Furthermore, 22 studies had children as the target population. CONCLUSIONS: The Alvarado score was the highest cited study since 1999, with 1086 citations, making it the most impactful study in this research field of diagnostic tools to diagnose appendicitis. Due to the diversity of target populations and settings for which diagnostic tools are developed, there is a need to expand research on diagnostic tools for appendicitis.