Production and citation of cochrane systematic reviews: a bibliometrics analysis


  • This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/jebm.12101.



To evaluate the production and utilization of Cochrane systematic reviews(CSRs) and to analyze its influential factors, so as to improve the capacity of translating CSRs into practice.


All CSRs and protocols were retrieved from the Cochrane Library ISSUE 2, 2011 and citation data were retrieved from SCI database. Citation analysis was used to analyze the situation of CSRs production and utilization.


CSR publication had grown from an annual average of 32 to 718 documents. Only one developing country was among the ten countries with the largest amount of publications. High income countries accounted for 83% of CSR publications and 90.8% of cited counts. 34.7% of CSRs had a cited count of 0, while only 0.9% had been cited more than 50 times. Highly cited CSRs were published in England, Australia, Canada, USA and other high income countries. The countries with a Cochrane center or a Cochrane methodology group had a greater capability of CSRs production and citing than others. The CSRs addressing the topics of diseases were more than those targeted at public health issues. There was a big gap in citations of different interventions even for the same topic.


The capability of CSR production and translation grew rapidly, but varied among countries and institutions, which was affected by several factors such as the capability of research, the resourcesand the applicability of the evidence. It is important to improve evidence translation through educating, training and prioritizing the problems based on real demands of end user.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.