IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i5d10.1007_s11192-025-05302-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cochrane reviews received more online attention than other systematic reviews—except when published in leading medical journals

Author

Listed:
  • Louise Olsbro Rosengaard

    (Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte
    Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte)

  • Mikkel Zola Andersen

    (Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte
    Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte)

  • Jacob Rosenberg

    (Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte
    Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte)

  • Siv Fonnes

    (Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte
    Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte)

Abstract

Traditional bibliometric analyses focus on citation counts, co-authorships, and impact factors, which do not fully capture the real-world impact of an academic publication. An alternative is to consider metrics gathered by Altmetric, which provide insight into online attention and engagement. We aimed to examine the difference in the online reach of Cochrane reviews versus other systematic reviews through a bibliometric analysis and identify potential areas where online dissemination can be improved. We conducted a bibliometric analysis using data obtained through application programming interfaces from PubMed and Altmetric. We included reviews indexed from 1993 to 2022 in PubMed and tracked them in Altmetric until ultimo 2023. Data were analysed with mean difference [95% CI] and tested with Mann–Whitney U-test. The study included 11,913 Cochrane reviews and 173,915 other systematic reviews. Over time, Cochrane reviews showed an increase in Altmetric Attention Scores (1993–1997: median 3 [IQR 3–4], 2018–2022: median 19 [IQR 8–39]), while other systematic reviews remained steady (1993–1997: median 6 [IQR 3–13], 2018–2022: median 4 [IQR 1–14]). Compared with systematic reviews from historically leading medical journals Cochrane reviews received less attention (median difference between − 23 [95% CI − 23.1 to (− 22.9)] and − 6 [95% CI − 6.1 to (− 5.9)]). Cochrane reviews received more online attention and engagement than other systematic reviews, but have less reach than the historically leading medical journals. There is room for improvement for both Cochrane reviews and other systematic reviews on news, websites, policies, and Facebook platforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Louise Olsbro Rosengaard & Mikkel Zola Andersen & Jacob Rosenberg & Siv Fonnes, 2025. "Cochrane reviews received more online attention than other systematic reviews—except when published in leading medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(5), pages 2861-2874, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05302-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05302-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05302-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-025-05302-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:plo:pmed00:1001885 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Johanna Useem & Alana Brennan & Michael LaValley & Michelle Vickery & Omid Ameli & Nichole Reinen & Christopher J Gill, 2015. "Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Sam Work & Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein, 2017. "Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(9), pages 2037-2062, September.
    4. repec:plo:pcbi00:1007704 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Rodrigo Costas & Zohreh Zahedi & Paul Wouters, 2015. "Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2003-2019, October.
    6. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Zhiqi & Chen, Yue & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2020. "Preprints as accelerator of scholarly communication: An empirical analysis in Mathematics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    2. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    3. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the Bibliometrics community," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 494-509.
    4. Tahamtan, Iman & Bornmann, Lutz, 2018. "Creativity in science and the link to cited references: Is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 906-930.
    5. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas & Wencan Tian & Xianwen Wang & Paul Wouters, 2020. "An extensive analysis of the presence of altmetric data for Web of Science publications across subject fields and research topics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2519-2549, September.
    6. Saeed-Ul Hassan & Timothy D. Bowman & Mudassir Shabbir & Aqsa Akhtar & Mubashir Imran & Naif Radi Aljohani, 2019. "Influential tweeters in relation to highly cited articles in altmetric big data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 481-493, April.
    7. Jianhua Hou & Bili Zheng & Yang Zhang & Chaomei Chen, 2021. "How do Price medalists’ scholarly impact change before and after their awards?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5945-5981, July.
    8. Tan Jin & Huiqiong Duan & Xiaofei Lu & Jing Ni & Kai Guo, 2021. "Do research articles with more readable abstracts receive higher online attention? Evidence from Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8471-8490, October.
    9. González-Betancor, Sara M. & Dorta-González, Pablo, 2023. "Does society show differential attention to researchers based on gender and field?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    10. Ni Cheng & Ke Dong, 2018. "Knowledge communication on social media: a case study of Biomedical Science on Baidu Baike," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1749-1770, September.
    11. Xi Zhang & Xianhai Wang & Hongke Zhao & Patricia Ordóñez de Pablos & Yongqiang Sun & Hui Xiong, 2019. "An effectiveness analysis of altmetrics indices for different levels of artificial intelligence publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1311-1344, June.
    12. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    13. Yang, Siluo & Zheng, Mengxue & Yu, Yonghao & Wolfram, Dietmar, 2021. "Are Altmetric.com scores effective for research impact evaluation in the social sciences and humanities?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    14. Dimity Stephen & Stephan Stahlschmidt, 2024. "Contrasting cross-correlation: Meta-analyses of the associations between citations and 13 altmetrics, incorporating moderating variables," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 6049-6063, October.
    15. Ying Guo & Xiantao Xiao, 2022. "Author-level altmetrics for the evaluation of Chinese scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 973-990, February.
    16. Olga Zagovora & Katrin Weller, 2025. "Science communicators, flat-earthers, or fitness coaches: who is citing scientific publications in youtube video descriptions?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(1), pages 205-235, January.
    17. Yaxue Ma & Zhichao Ba & Yuxiang Zhao & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2021. "Understanding and predicting the dissemination of scientific papers on social media: a two-step simultaneous equation modeling–artificial neural network approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 7051-7085, August.
    18. Yu Liu & Dan Lin & Xiujuan Xu & Shimin Shan & Quan Z. Sheng, 2018. "Multi-views on Nature Index of Chinese academic institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 823-837, March.
    19. Ortega, José Luis, 2021. "How do media mention research papers? Structural analysis of blogs and news networks using citation coupling," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    20. Ou, Guiyan & Zhao, Kang & Zuo, Renxian & Wu, Jiang, 2024. "Effects of research funding on the academic impact and societal visibility of scientific research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05302-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.