Edita Runjic1, Dalibora Behmen2, Dawid Pieper3, Tim Mathes3, Andrea C Tricco4, David Moher5, Livia Puljak6. 1. Department of Pediatrics, General Hospital Dubrovnik, Roka Misetica 2, 20000 Dubrovnik, Croatia. 2. Cochrane Croatia, University of Split School of Medicine, Soltanska 2, Split, Croatia. 3. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, building 38, 51109 Cologne, Germany. 4. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1T8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 6th Floor, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M7, Canada; Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: a Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 5. Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4E9, Canada. 6. Center for Evidence-based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; Department for Development, Research and Health Technology Assessment, Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care and Social Welfare, Planinska 13, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. Electronic address: livia.puljak@unicath.hr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We analyzed patterns of publication of Cochrane review protocols (CRPs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed CRPs published in 2010, extracted their characteristics, and analyzed whether they were published by February 2018. We surveyed corresponding authors and Cochrane review groups to analyze reasons for nonpublication of protocols and analyzed factors predicting the time to publication. RESULTS: Of 576 CRPs, 446 (77.4%) were published as a full review and 130 (22.6%) were still unpublished in February 2018; among unpublished, 37 (28.5%) were withdrawn and 93 (71.5%) were still active. The most common authors' reason for abandoning a protocol was a lack of time to work on the review. The median time to publication was 2.78 years (range 0.96 to 8.05). Multivariate analysis showed that factors with the strongest association with shorter time to publication were review being an update and new authors added. Analysis only on methodological variables indicated that the strongest association for a shorter time until publication was found for including only published data. CONCLUSIONS: Almost a quarter of CRPs remains unpublished after 8 years. This figure is slightly higher than in a previous analysis 10 years ago. Strategies for enhancing completion of Cochrane reviews should be considered.
OBJECTIVE: We analyzed patterns of publication of Cochrane review protocols (CRPs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed CRPs published in 2010, extracted their characteristics, and analyzed whether they were published by February 2018. We surveyed corresponding authors and Cochrane review groups to analyze reasons for nonpublication of protocols and analyzed factors predicting the time to publication. RESULTS: Of 576 CRPs, 446 (77.4%) were published as a full review and 130 (22.6%) were still unpublished in February 2018; among unpublished, 37 (28.5%) were withdrawn and 93 (71.5%) were still active. The most common authors' reason for abandoning a protocol was a lack of time to work on the review. The median time to publication was 2.78 years (range 0.96 to 8.05). Multivariate analysis showed that factors with the strongest association with shorter time to publication were review being an update and new authors added. Analysis only on methodological variables indicated that the strongest association for a shorter time until publication was found for including only published data. CONCLUSIONS: Almost a quarter of CRPs remains unpublished after 8 years. This figure is slightly higher than in a previous analysis 10 years ago. Strategies for enhancing completion of Cochrane reviews should be considered.