Journal article icon

Journal article

Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies

Abstract:
Background There is no specific guidance for the reporting of Cochrane systematic reviews that do not have studies eligible for inclusion. As a result, the reporting of these so-called “empty reviews” may vary across reviews. This research explores the incidence of empty systematic reviews in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The CDSR) and describes their current characteristics. Methodology/Principal Findings Empty reviews within The CDSR as of 15 August 2010 were identified, extracted, and coded for analysis. Review group, original publication year, and time since last update, as well as number of studies listed as excluded, awaiting assessment, or on-going within empty reviews were examined. 376 (8.7%) active reviews in The CDSR reported no included studies. At the time of data collection, 45 (84.9%) of the Cochrane Collaboration's 53 Review Groups sustained at least one empty review, with the number of empty reviews for each of these 45 groups ranging from 1 to 35 (2.2–26.9%). Time since original publication of empty reviews ranged from 0 to 15 years with a mean of 4.2 years (SD = 3.4). Time since last assessed as up-to-date ranged from 0 to 12 years with a mean of 2.8 years (SD = 2.2). The number of excluded studies reported in these reviews ranged from 0 to 124, with an average of 9.6 per review (SD = 14.5). Eighty-eight (23.4%) empty reviews reported no excluded studies, studies awaiting assessment, or on-going studies. Conclusions There is a substantial number of empty reviews in The CDSR, and there is some variation in the reporting and updating of empty reviews across Cochrane Review Groups. This variation warrants further analysis, and may indicate a need to develop guidance for the reporting of empty systematic reviews in The CDSR.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions


Access Document


Files:
Publisher copy:
10.1371/journal.pone.0036626

Authors


More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MSD
Department:
NDORMS
Role:
Author


Publisher:
Public Library of Science
Journal:
PLoS ONE More from this journal
Volume:
7
Issue:
5
Pages:
ARTN e36626
Publication date:
2012-05-04
Acceptance date:
2012-04-09
DOI:
EISSN:
1932-6203
ISSN:
1932-6203


Language:
English
Keywords:
UUID:
uuid:6ec61978-677d-4989-9058-361d68078c33
Local pid:
pubs:342684
Source identifiers:
342684
Deposit date:
2014-02-26

Terms of use



Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP