Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

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

Systematic Reviews20154:118

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0104-5

Received: 2 April 2015

Accepted: 24 August 2015

Published: 22 September 2015

Abstract

Background

Systematic 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

We 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

Keywords

Cochrane reviews Co-publication Citation

Background

Systematic reviews of interventions aim to provide a summary of the evidence available to address a research question about intervention effectiveness and harm. Since 1994, Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) have been published electronically in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), which is included in The Cochrane Library, and they are updated as needed. To attract authors and maximize dissemination of the reviews, the Cochrane Collaboration encourages authors to consider the option of “co-publishing” their CSRs in traditional journals alongside their CDSR publication.

Both the Cochrane Editorial and Publishing Policy Resource (referred to as the “Policy Manual” hereafter) [1] and The Cochrane Handbook [2] have delineated co-publication standards. The eight requirements for co-publication are summarized in Additional file 1; only four (one of which addresses two issues) can be examined for adherence in the text of a co-publication.

Whether to pursue co-publication in a traditional journal typically is the choice of CSR authors; in some cases, co-publication may be suggested by Cochrane review group editors when they deem the topic to be timely and of special interest to clinicians and patients. For example, the Cochrane Skin Group, which has co-published about one third of their CSRs, encourages the practice [3].

The objective of our cross-sectional study was to examine the frequency of co-publication of Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group (CEVG) reviews, adherence to co-publication policy, whether co-publication of CSRs in the field of eyes and vision has been associated with additional citation of CSRs, and whether CSRs with co-publications have been cited more often than CSRs without co-publications. To our knowledge, these issues have not been addressed for CSRs published by any other Cochrane review group.

Methods

For Cochrane Collaboration-related projects, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health allows us to query authors about their studies without specific ethics approval. Otherwise, no humans were involved in this research project, and we did not request ethics approval for any portion of the project.

We selected for study all CEVG reviews published in the CDSR as of May 30, 2014. We identified all potential co-publications using a three-step strategy. In the first step, performed in January and February 2013, for each CEVG review, we searched Web of Science and Scopus citations for title words and the first author’s surname. In the second step, we searched Google Scholar and PubMed using the term “Cochrane eyes and vision group”. In neither the first nor the second step did we limit our searches by language of publication. In the third step, performed in March 2013, we surveyed the contact authors of all CEVG reviews via email to ask whether they had published elsewhere on the topic of their CSR, specifically, whether they had co-published a Cochrane review. When contact authors appeared on more than one CSR, we asked about all reviews on which their names appeared. We performed final searches of the CDSR and citation databases on June 11, 2014. We paired the most recent versions of the CEVG reviews with co-publications, recognizing that multiple CSRs can contribute to a single co-publication and that one CSR may lead to two or more co-publications on the same or different aspects of the research question.

We used a pre-tested online data collection form, created in Google Forms, to enter the study information for each CEVG review-co-publication pair or group. The online data collection form was pre-tested by collecting data from several randomly selected co-publications and corresponding CEVG reviews to ensure the completeness of data collection. Data extracted include the following: study characteristics such as journal of the co-publication and Journal Impact Factor (JIF), comparison of publication dates between co-publication and corresponding CSR, authorship, number of included studies, and fulfillment of each Policy Manual requirement for the co-publication that we could evaluate. Details of data extraction are provided in Additional file 2.

On June 11, 2014, we searched Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus for each review and each co-publication and recorded the number of times each one had been cited. Whenever multiple versions of a CEVG review were found, we checked the citation list of each co-publication to make sure that it cited no more than one version of the same CSR. To obtain the total number of times each review was cited, we counted each time a citation was made to any version of the review. When two or more co-publications had emanated from one CEVG review topic, we summed the times cited for all co-publications. We also recorded the number of times each co-publication and corresponding CEVG review had been cited by the review authors themselves (i.e., “self-citation”). We then compared the number of citations for each co-publication and its corresponding CEVG review, identified by the three citation resources, using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test.

We compared the numbers of citations to CEVG reviews with co-publications to the numbers of citations of CEVG reviews without co-publications, using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, for each of the three citation resources, including and excluding self-citations. All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 12 (StataCorp. 2011. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP).

The Policy Manual requirements for co-publication of CSRs are given in Additional file 1. Specifically, the journal version must faithfully reflect the Cochrane version, indicate that it is a secondary publication, acknowledge support from the CRG, and cite the Cochrane review. We were able to evaluate adherence to four of the requirements based on comparison of CSRs and corresponding co-publications while noting that one is a two-part requirement.

Results

Characteristics of co-publications

As of May 30, 2014, 117 CEVG reviews had been published in the CDSR. By searching citation and bibliographic databases, we identified 21 co-publications corresponding to 18 CEVG reviews. From our survey of 88 contact authors of 105 CEVG reviews published by March 2013 to which 79 (90 %) of the contact authors responded, we identified one co-publication from one CSR not identified by our search. Therefore, we identified a total of 22 co-publications corresponding to 19 CEVG reviews. One co-publication [4] was generated from two CEVG reviews [5, 6] and four CEVG reviews [710], each had two co-publications [1118]; there was one co-publication from each of the remaining 13 CEVG reviews [1944]. Characteristics of the 22 co-publications are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Characteristics of 22 co-publications matched to 19 Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group systematic reviews

Study characteristics

N

(%)

Co-publication content compared to the CEVG review

  

 Identicala

3

(14 %)

 Similar but not identicala

14

(64 %)

 Abridgeda

3

(13 %)

 Otherb

2

(9 %)

Journal of co-publication

  

 Ophthalmology journal

12

(55 %)

  Indexed in Web of Science or Scopus as of publication date

11/12

 

 General or other medical journal

10

(45 %)

  Indexed in Web of Science or Scopus as of publication date

7/10

 

Authorship of co-publication

  

 Identical to CEVG review

11

(50 %)

 Same authors, different order

3

(14 %)

 One author added or removed

8

(36 %)

Co-publication timing

  

 Before the CEVG reviewc

5

(23 %)

 Within 2 years after CEVG review

14

(63 %)

 More than 2 years after CEVG review

3

(14 %)

Co-publication based on

  

 Original review

15

(68 %)

 Updated review

7

(32 %)

Citation of the CEVG review by the co-publication

  

 Cited

12

(55 %)

 Not cited, but CEVG review mentioned in the text

4

(18 %)

 Not cited or mentioned

6

(27 %)

Country of affiliation of co-publication first author

  

 UK

16

(73 %)

 USA

6

(27 %)

Number of included studies d

  

 Same as CEVG review

16

(73 %)

 Some overlap with CEVG review

6

(27 %)

aIdentical is exact copy of CSR, Similar would be applied, for example, when the co-publication has a shorter methods section, and Abridged would be applied, for example, when the co-publication is a summary of the major findings from CSR

bOf two co-publications classified as “Other”, one co-publication-CSR pair had no included studies and the authors discussed the characteristics of the condition; the second co-publication reported a subset of the interventions described in the CEVG review

cFive CEVG reviews were published after the co-publications

dNumber of included studies in co-publication: 4 had 0 studies, 6 had 1–4 studies, 6 had 5–9 studies, and 6 had ≥10

Twelve of 22 (55 %) co-publications were in ophthalmology journals, and 10/22 (45 %) were published in general medical or other journals (Table 1, Fig. 1). Among the 12 co-publications in seven ophthalmology journals, two reviews were published in ophthalmology subspecialty journals. Most CEVG co-publications (15/22; 86 %) appeared in journals indexed in Google Scholar, Web of Science, or Scopus at the time of publication. The median JIF of the journals of co-publication was 1.83; the JIF ranged from 0 (journals without JIFs) to 17.215 (BMJ). Among the 12 journals, only one is open-access (Saudi Medical Journal).
Fig. 1

Journals of co-publication, by type of journal and Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Journal Impact Factor (JIF; rounded) as of March 9, 2015, is given at the top of each bar

A majority of co-publications (63 %) were published within 2 years after publication of the CEVG review. However, five co-publications [17, 30, 40, 42, 44] were published before the corresponding CEVG review. The time difference between each CEVG review and co-publication is shown in Fig. 2. A majority (62 %) of the co-publications were based on the original (first) version of the CEVG review.
Fig. 2

Timing of publication of 18 pairs of CEVG reviews and corresponding co-publications. Note: green bars indicate co-publications published after the CEVG review; red bars indicate co-publications published before the CEVG review

Among the 18 co-publications with at least one included study, 13 (72 %) cited all studies included in the CEVG review, three (17 %) cited some of the included studies [14, 26, 32], and two (11 %) did not cite any of the included studies [16, 40].

Fulfillment of evaluable Policy Manual requirements for co-publication

1. Reflect the data and interpretation of the CSR faithfully. (Requirement 5, see Additional file 1)

All 22 co-publications (100 %) had the same conclusion (i.e., interpretation agreed) as the corresponding CEVG review, although 6/22 (27 %) included a different number of studies (i.e., data differed) from the CEVG review (Additional file 3 lists the reasons).

2. Indicate that the journal version is a secondary publication (complete republication, abridged republication, complete translation, or abridged translation). (Requirement 6)

Thirteen of the 22 co-publications (59 %) indicated that the co-publication was a secondary publication of the CEVG review (see Additional file 4).

3. Acknowledge the support of the Cochrane Review Group in publishing the CSR. (Requirement 7)

Half of the co-publications (11/22, 50 %) acknowledged the support of the CEVG.

4. Cite the corresponding CSR in the co-publication reference list and, when applicable (i.e., co-publication was published before the most recent version of the CSR), list the co-publication in the section “other published versions of this review” of the corresponding CSR. (Requirement 8)

Eleven of 22 (50 %) co-publications cited the corresponding CEVG review; 6 of 19 (32 %) CEVG reviews included the co-publication information in the “other published versions of this review” section of the CSR (Table 1).

Number of times cited

As shown in Table 2, the 22 co-publications had been cited approximately 3.5 times as often as the corresponding CEVG reviews, based on information in the Web of Science and Scopus. Based on information from Google Scholar, the number of citations to co-publications and CEVG reviews were similar. Self-citations accounted for fewer than 10 % of all citations and did not influence these findings.
Table 2

Numbers of citations of co-publications and corresponding CEVG reviews, as of June 11, 2014

Co-publication (N = 22)

No of citations, Google Scholar

No. of citations, Web of Science

No. of citations, Scopus

CEVG review (N = 19)

No. of citations, Google Scholar

No. of citations Web of Science

No. of citations, Scopus

Barsam 2012 [20]

3

1

1

Barsam 2010 [19]

23

7

4

Buehl 2008 [22]

40

22

22

Findl 2007 [21]

100

43

37

Calderon 2011 [11]

32

20

21

Calderon 2011 [7]

19

7

1

Calderon 2012 [12]

N/Aa

N/Aa

0

Evans 2008 [4]

82

37

49

Evans 2006 [5]

111

45

14

Evans 2008 [6]

28

33

35

Fedorowicz 2006 [24]

12

8

6

Fedorowicz 2005 [23]

47

1

0

Gnanaraj 2005 [34]

12

3

9

Richardson 2003 [33]

32

4

12

Leyland 2003 [28]

183

109

130

Leyland 2001 [27]

87

26

18

Lueck 2002 [30]

11

N/Aa

8

Lueck 2002 [29]

77

0

10

Mabey 2003 [32]

N/Aa

N/Aa

5

Mabey 2002 [31]

69

6

9

Sheikh 2001 [13]

81

43

52

Sheikh 2000 [8]

158

33

21

Sheikh 2005 [14]

54

25

30

Shortt 2006 [36]

69

39

50

Shortt 2006 [35]

7

0

3

Shotton 2009 [15]

N/Aa

N/Aa

N/Aa

Shotton 2008 [9]

4

7

8

Shotton 2009 [16]

N/Aa

N/Aa

N/Aa

Sivaprasad 2005 [38]

43

22

31

Sivaprasad 2005 [37]

83

2

8

Smeeth 1998 [40]

40

28

34

Smeeth 1998 [39]

44

7

4

Stanford 2003 [26]

79

36

48

Gilbert 2002 [25]

31

0

0

Wilhelmus 2000 [42]

42

N/Aa

28

Wilhelmus 2001 [41]

23

7

4

Wilkinson 1999 [17]

10

N/Aa

6

Wilkinson 2001 [10]

36

0

2

Wilkinson 2000 [18]

90

38

50

Wormald 2005 [44]

N/Aa

N/Aa

N/Aa

Wormald 2005 [43]

146

35

34

Median

42

26.5

28

 

40

7

8

Range

3 to 183

1 to 109

0 to 130

 

4 to 158

0 to 78

0 to 49

Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank testb

P = 0.32

P = 0.07

P = 0.004

    

All numbers cited include self-citations

aN/A indicates that the article was not found in Google Scholar, Web of Science or Scopus, sometimes because the journal was not indexed

bThe Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was used to test the difference between the number of citations to each co-publication and its corresponding CEVG review in each database (Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus, respectively). We considered a value of P < 0.05 to indicate a statistically significant difference in numbers of citations between a co-publication and its corresponding CEVG review

The 19 CEVG reviews with at least one co-publication had been cited twice as often as the 98 CEVG reviews without a co-publication, or more often when we considered the data retrieved from Google Scholar (Table 3). Numbers of citations documented by Web of Science and Google Scholar differed between co-published CEVG reviews and CEVG reviews without co-publications but were similar within Scopus (Table 3).
Table 3

Numbers of citations to CEVG reviews without versus with one or more co-publications

Citations from three sources

CEVG reviews without a co-publication

CEVG reviews with ≥1 co-publication

P value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test

Number of reviews

98

19

 

Times cited in Google Scholar, median (IQR)

18 (7 to 36)

44 (23 to 87)

P = 0.0003

Times cited in Web of Science, median (IQR)

3 (0 to 7)

7 (1 to 33)

P = 0.04

Times cited in Scopus, median (IQR)

5 (1 to 11)

9 (2 to 18)

P = 0.20

The numbers of citations are those found on June 11, 2014

CEVG Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group, IQR interquartile range

Discussion

Only a small proportion of CEVG reviews (19/117, 16.2 %) had been co-published based on information available as of May 2014. The percentage of CSRs co-published has changed little since 2007 (10/51; 19.6 %) [45]. 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].

Physicians and researchers who do not use or do not have easy access to the CDSR may not be aware of important and up-to-date evidence synthesis it contains, and co-publication could provide this access. Does co-publication represent a form of duplicate publication? We do not think so, as the Cochrane review is unlikely to be “the same as” a co-publication, in that it is likely to be much longer and its structure follows a specified Cochrane format. Thus, one view could be that Cochrane is helping to reduce research waste by its co-publication policy, by making it more likely that the evidence gets to clinicians and others who can use it. It would be worth discussing whether Cochrane could do even more to reduce research waste by suggesting co-publication in open-access journals.

For the same review topic, the co-publication had been cited more often than the CEVG review, although the difference was statistically significant only within the Scopus database (Table 2). Although Web of Science and Scopus produced lower citation estimates than Google Scholar, nevertheless CEVG reviews with co-publications also had been cited about twice as often as those reviews without co-publications (Table 3).

The Policy Manual requirements for co-publication typically had not been fulfilled by the authors of CEVG reviews. All co-publications drew the same conclusions about treatment effectiveness as the corresponding CEVG reviews, including six that had different numbers of included studies. However, when co-publications appeared after or at the same time as the CEVG review (19/22 or 86 % of co-publications), only half of the co-publications acknowledged the support of the CEVG or cited the CEVG review. We recommend that the CEVG and other Cochrane Review Groups who wish to encourage co-publication monitor co-publications for fulfillment of the Cochrane policy. Adherence to co-publication policies of both Cochrane and individual journals should be important to editors of journals with co-publication agreements with Cochrane [46].

Thus, co-publication, when the CSR is cited properly, may bring attention to Cochrane reviews and increase dissemination. Our findings support encouraging co-publication while maintaining the primacy of the Cochrane systematic review. Support for co-publication may be tempered by other factors, of course, such as the reasons for co-publication, a topic we have not explored in this study. For example, it is possible that CEVG review authors are more likely to pursue a co-publication for more clinically important and timely topics or for more complex systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In addition, we do not know whether any authors of CEVG reviews prepared their findings for co-publication only to have their manuscript rejected by editors who saw no need to use journal space to publish information already publicly available.

As far as we know, the notion of co-publication, per se, is unique to Cochrane systematic reviews. This is likely because the Cochrane Collaboration has, from its beginning in 1993, wanted to attract authors who sought publishing outlets in addition to The Cochrane Library. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, another commissioner of systematic reviews, publishes the Effective Healthcare Programs full reviews on its website (http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/) and encourages authors to publish a shorter version elsewhere as well (e.g., http://www.jclinepi.com/content/jce-AHRQ-Series).

Discussion within Cochrane as to whether authors should be encouraged to co-publish in other journals has mainly concerned broader dissemination and providing opportunities for attracting authors. For example, it is possible that co-publications will be read and cited by physicians and scientists and thus may lead readers to consult the full Cochrane review; if this assumption is correct, co-publication is one way to disseminate findings of Cochrane reviews and to increase their influence. On the other hand, co-publications may attract attention to the co-publishing journal and may not draw attention to Cochrane reviews; if this assumption is correct, Cochrane reviews may be less cited and less influential than the co-publications. Furthermore, if co-publications are cited more often than Cochrane reviews, review authors may be motivated to publish first in journals other than The Cochrane Library. Some review groups have asked whether it is a good idea to write to authors of systematic reviews published elsewhere to convert their reviews to CSRs. We found little evidence that this strategy had been employed in the CEVG, since in only 3/22 cases of co-publication of CEVG reviews was there evidence that the CSR was completed after the co-publication [10, 39, 41].

We observed a tendency to increased citation of co-publications over the CEVG reviews, regardless of the database used to identify citations; however, the numbers of citations identified by each source varied. Web of Science had the smallest number of citations among the three databases, and Google Scholar had the greatest number of citations for both CEVG reviews and corresponding co-publications. We noted that Google Scholar took into account the numbers cited for multiple versions of CSRs and had not removed duplicate citations. We expect that there are other differences between databases that account for discrepancies in numbers of citations of both co-publications and CSRs, but we did not seek to understand these discrepancies in any depth.

Although we imposed no language restrictions on our search, we did not attempt to search any non-English database. Given this fact, the lack of response from ten contact authors to our inquiry and domination of Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed by English-language journals, it is possible that we missed co-publications not in the English language. We also did not survey review authors regarding their reasons for co-publishing their CEVG review or choosing not to do so.

The JIF, a ratio reflecting the number of citations to articles published in a specific journal during the previous 2 years divided by the total number of citable articles published in the journal, is considered by many publishers, readers, authors, and reviewers to be a marker of a journal’s importance. The CDSR received its first impact factor in 2007 (4.654) and its most recent JIF in 2014 (6.032). This may not reflect the “impact” of CEVG reviews however. To understand how the JIF and other considerations have affected authors’ decisions to co-publish or not, further surveys of review authors, both those who have co-published and those who have not, would be required. 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].

The Cochrane Back Review Group also recently examined co-publication and had similar findings to our own [47]. With 62 published reviews, as of Issue 4, 2013 of The Cochrane Library, and 59 co-publications (some Cochrane reviews had more than one co-publication), a greater proportion of their reviews had been co-published compared to the CEVG reviews. For the ten most frequently cited reviews from the Cochrane Back Review Group, the number of citations to co-publications were generally the same or greater than to the review itself; overall, the co-publications had been cited about two times more often than the ten top-cited Cochrane reviews.

Conclusions

Only about one in seven CEVG reviews have been co-published, but, when they have been, co-publications have been cited more often than the corresponding CEVG reviews. If one accepts citations to be a valid measure of dissemination effectiveness, the CEVG experience with co-publication of systematic reviews during the past 15 years suggests that authors of CEVG reviews who wish to increase dissemination of their findings should co-publish them in traditional medical journals. Cochrane review groups may be wise to invest some resources in co-publication.

Abbreviation

CDSR: 

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

CEU: 

Cochrane Editorial Unit

CEVG: 

Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group

CRG: 

Cochrane Review Group

CSR: 

Cochrane Systematic Reviews

IQR: 

interquartile range

JIF: 

Journal Impact Factor

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors received salary support during preparation of this manuscript from the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group (CEVG) @ US project (Kay Dickersin, Principal Investigator), sponsored by the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health grant number U01 EY020522. Dr. Hawkins received an additional support from an unrestricted grant to the Wilmer Eye Institute of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, NY.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University
(2)
The Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine

References

  1. Cochrane Editorial and Publishing Policy Resource [Policy Manual]. http://www.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource.
  2. Green S, Higgins JPT. Chapter 2: preparing a Cochrane review. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.Google Scholar
  3. Greene RE, Freeman SR, Lundahl K, Dellavalle RP. Co-publishing Cochrane library systematic reviews: journal editor and Cochrane Skin Group author experiences. Br J Dermatol. 2008;158(6):1380–2. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08552.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Evans J. Antioxidant supplements to prevent or slow down the progression of AMD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eye (Lond). 2008;22(6):751–60. doi:10.1038/eye.2008.100.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans JR. Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for slowing the progression of age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2006;2:CD000254. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000254.pub2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans JR, Henshaw K. Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for preventing age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2008;1:CD000253. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000253.pub2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Calderon MA, Penagos M, Sheikh A, Canonica GW, Durham S. Sublingual immunotherapy for treating allergic conjunctivitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2011;7:CD007685. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007685.pub2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Sheikh A, Hurwitz B, Cave J. Antibiotics for acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2000;2:CD001211. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Shotton K, Powell C, Voros G, Hatt SR. Interventions for unilateral refractive amblyopia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2008;4:CD005137. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005137.pub2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Wilkinson C. Interventions for asymptomatic retinal breaks and lattice degeneration for preventing retinal detachment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2001;3:CD003170. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003170.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Calderon MA, Penagos M, Sheikh A, Canonica GW, Durham SR. Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic conjunctivitis: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Allergy. 2011;41(9):1263–72. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03835.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Calderon MA, Penagos M, Sheikh A, Canonica GW, Durham SR. Sublingual immunotherapy for treating allergic conjunctivitis. Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Journal. 2012;7(3):1041–154.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Sheikh A, Hurwitz B. Topical antibiotics for acute bacterial conjunctivitis: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51(467):473–7.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Sheikh A, Hurwitz B. Topical antibiotics for acute bacterial conjunctivitis: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis update. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55(521):962–4.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Shotton K, Powell C, Voros G, Hatt SR. Interventions for unilateral refractive amblyopia. Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Journal. 2009;4(3):1247–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Shotton K, Powell C, Voros G, Hatt SR. Summary of ‘Interventions for unilateral refractive amblyopia’, including tables of key findings and quality of included trials. Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Journal. 2009;4(3):1284–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Wilkinson CP. Evidence-based medicine regarding the prevention of retinal detachment. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1999;1999(97):397–404.Google Scholar
  18. Wilkinson CP. Evidence-based analysis of prophylactic treatment of asymptomatic retinal breaks and lattice degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(1):12–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Barsam A, Allan BD. Excimer laser refractive surgery versus phakic intraocular lenses for the correction of moderate to high myopia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010;5:CD007679. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007679.pub2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Barsam A, Allan BD. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing excimer laser and phakic intraocular lenses for myopia between 6.0 and 20.0 diopters. Cornea. 2012;31(4):454–61. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e31823f0b29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Findl O, Buehl W, Bauer P, Sycha T. Interventions for preventing posterior capsule opacification. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007;3:CD003738. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003738.pub2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Buehl W, Findl O. Effect of intraocular lens design on posterior capsule opacification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(11):1976–85. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.07.029.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Fedorowicz Z, Lawrence D, Gutierrez P. Day care versus in-patient surgery for age-related cataract. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005;1:CD004242. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004242.pub3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fedorowicz Z, Lawrence DJ, Gutierrez P. A Cochrane Systematic Review finds no significant difference in outcome or risk of postoperative complications between day care and in-patient cataract surgery. Saudi Med Jl. 2006;27(9):1296–301.Google Scholar
  25. Gilbert RE, See SE, Jones LV, Stanford MS. Antibiotics versus control for toxoplasma retinochoroiditis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2002;1:CD002218. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Stanford MR, See SE, Jones LV, Gilbert RE. Antibiotics for toxoplasmic retinochoroiditis: an evidence-based systematic review. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(5):926–31. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00083-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Leyland M, Zinicola E. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2001;3:CD003169. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Leyland M, Zinicola E. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(9):1789–98. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00722-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lueck C, McIlwaine G. Interventions for idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2002;3:CD003434. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003434.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lueck CJ, McIlwaine GG. Idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Practical Neurol. 2002;2(5):262–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Mabey D, Fraser-Hurt N. Antibiotics for trachoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2002;1:CD001860. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001860.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mabey D, Solomon A. The effect of antibiotic treatment on active trachoma and ocular Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Expert Rev Anti Infect The. 2003;1(2):209–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Richardson S, Gnanaraj L. Interventions for intermittent distance exotropia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2003;2:CD003737. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003737.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Gnanaraj L, Richardson SR. Interventions for intermittent distance exotropia: review. Eye (Lond). 2005;19(6):617–21. doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6701617.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Shortt AJ, Allan BD. Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2006;2:CD005135. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005135.pub2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Shortt AJ, Bunce C, Allan BD. Evidence for superior efficacy and safety of LASIK over photorefractive keratectomy for correction of myopia. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(11):1897–908. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.08.013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sivaprasad S, Bunce C, Patel N. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents for treating cystoid macular oedema following cataract surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005;1:CD004239. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004239.pub2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sivaprasad S, Bunce C, Wormald R. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents for cystoid macular oedema following cataract surgery: a systematic review. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(11):1420–2. doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.073817.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Smeeth L, Iliffe S. Community screening for visual impairment in the elderly. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1998;4:CD001054.Google Scholar
  40. Smeeth L, Iliffe S. Effectiveness of screening older people for impaired vision in community setting: systematic review of evidence from randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1998;316(7132):660–3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilhelmus KR. Antiviral treatment and other therapeutic interventions for herpes simplex virus epithelial keratitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2001;1:CD002898. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002898.pub4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilhelmus KR. The treatment of herpes simplex virus epithelial keratitis. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2000;98:505–32.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Wormald R, Evans J, Smeeth L, Henshaw K. Photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005;4:CD002030. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002030.pub2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wormald R, Evans JR, Henshaw KS, Smeeth LL. Photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Philippine J Ophthalmol. 2005;30(2):46–61.Google Scholar
  45. Li T, Scherer R, Twose C, Anton B, Dickersin K. Identification and characterization of systematic reviews in eyes and vision. Presented at the XV Cochrane Colloquium, 2007 Oct 23–27, Sao Paulo, Brazil. The Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR); 2012. http://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/evidences/resource/es/CMR-11343.
  46. Wille-Jørgensen P. Co-publication agreement between Colorectal Disease and the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:265.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Marin TJ, Furlan AD, Bombardier C, van Tulder M, Editorial Board of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Fifteen years of the Cochrane back review group. Spine. 2013;38(24):2057–63. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Wang et al. 2015

Advertisement