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 search for a different version of it.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.