{"title":"Cochrane系统综述分析：1998 - 2024年影响与影响的综合研究","authors":"Amin Sharifan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews has significantly impacted clinical practices across diverse disciplines and is widely integrated into international guidelines. To date, there are no bibliometric analyses of Cochrane's publications.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The search encompassed the Scopus database from inception to May 2024, with results limited to studies published by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The analysis examined annual trends and publication volumes, citation patterns, contributing countries, authors, institutions, funding sources, and common keywords. Scopus' built-in analytical tools, the bibliometrix package in RStudio, and VOSviewer software facilitated the analysis of the results.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 12,150 systematic reviews were eligible. There was a fluctuating pattern in publication and citation trends within Cochrane reviews, with a decline in both metrics since 2016. Contributions mainly came from high-income countries, their institutions, and authors residing there, with significant government funding supporting publications in these regions. The United Kingdom (27%), Australia (10%), and the United States (9%) had the greatest contributions among other countries, respectively. Furthermore, the demographic emphasis in Cochrane reviews was concerned with female and male participants as well as children and adult populations, hinting at the potential underrepresentation of minor gender identities and older adults in the synthesis of evidence.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Cochrane should actively involve researchers and experts from low- and middle-income countries in evidence synthesis, ensure underrepresented and low-resource regions are included in its emerging Evidence Synthesis Units and Thematic Groups, and prioritize the inclusion of geriatric populations and sexual and gender minorities in its evidence to enhance inclusivity and global representation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70010","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews: A comprehensive study of impact and influence from 1998 to 2024\",\"authors\":\"Amin Sharifan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cesm.70010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews has significantly impacted clinical practices across diverse disciplines and is widely integrated into international guidelines. To date, there are no bibliometric analyses of Cochrane's publications.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The search encompassed the Scopus database from inception to May 2024, with results limited to studies published by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The analysis examined annual trends and publication volumes, citation patterns, contributing countries, authors, institutions, funding sources, and common keywords. Scopus' built-in analytical tools, the bibliometrix package in RStudio, and VOSviewer software facilitated the analysis of the results.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 12,150 systematic reviews were eligible. There was a fluctuating pattern in publication and citation trends within Cochrane reviews, with a decline in both metrics since 2016. Contributions mainly came from high-income countries, their institutions, and authors residing there, with significant government funding supporting publications in these regions. The United Kingdom (27%), Australia (10%), and the United States (9%) had the greatest contributions among other countries, respectively. Furthermore, the demographic emphasis in Cochrane reviews was concerned with female and male participants as well as children and adult populations, hinting at the potential underrepresentation of minor gender identities and older adults in the synthesis of evidence.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Cochrane should actively involve researchers and experts from low- and middle-income countries in evidence synthesis, ensure underrepresented and low-resource regions are included in its emerging Evidence Synthesis Units and Thematic Groups, and prioritize the inclusion of geriatric populations and sexual and gender minorities in its evidence to enhance inclusivity and global representation.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"volume\":\"2 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70010\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.70010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.70010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews: A comprehensive study of impact and influence from 1998 to 2024
Introduction
Evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews has significantly impacted clinical practices across diverse disciplines and is widely integrated into international guidelines. To date, there are no bibliometric analyses of Cochrane's publications.
Methods
The search encompassed the Scopus database from inception to May 2024, with results limited to studies published by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The analysis examined annual trends and publication volumes, citation patterns, contributing countries, authors, institutions, funding sources, and common keywords. Scopus' built-in analytical tools, the bibliometrix package in RStudio, and VOSviewer software facilitated the analysis of the results.
Results
A total of 12,150 systematic reviews were eligible. There was a fluctuating pattern in publication and citation trends within Cochrane reviews, with a decline in both metrics since 2016. Contributions mainly came from high-income countries, their institutions, and authors residing there, with significant government funding supporting publications in these regions. The United Kingdom (27%), Australia (10%), and the United States (9%) had the greatest contributions among other countries, respectively. Furthermore, the demographic emphasis in Cochrane reviews was concerned with female and male participants as well as children and adult populations, hinting at the potential underrepresentation of minor gender identities and older adults in the synthesis of evidence.
Conclusion
Cochrane should actively involve researchers and experts from low- and middle-income countries in evidence synthesis, ensure underrepresented and low-resource regions are included in its emerging Evidence Synthesis Units and Thematic Groups, and prioritize the inclusion of geriatric populations and sexual and gender minorities in its evidence to enhance inclusivity and global representation.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
