Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of 22 co-publications matched to 19 Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group systematic reviews

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

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 %)
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. cFive CEVG reviews were published after the co-publications
  4. 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