Distribution of Country of Origin in Studies Used in Cochrane Reviews

Robert F. Wolff · Stefan Reinders · Gerd Antes

12 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Inclusion in systematic reviews is one important component in judging the potential impact of clinical studies upon practice and hence the 'value for money' of spending for clinical research. This study aims to quantify the distribution of countries of origin of clinical studies used in Cochrane Reviews (CRs), and to link these data to the size of a country and to its spending on research. METHODS: Random sample of publications used for CRs published in Issue 1 2008 and of publications used in CRs in the field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Publications without original data were excluded. Likely countries of origin determined based on abstracts/full texts. CIA World Factbook (population data) and OECD database (economic data) were used. RESULTS: 1,000 random entries out of 140,005 references available in all specialities. In 876 (91.4%) of 959 eligible studies, country of origin was determined. The USA was the leading contributor (36.0% of the studies), followed by UK (13.4%), Canada (5.3%), Australia and Sweden (3.7%). In the CAM sample, country of origin was determined in 458 (93.5%) of 497 assessed studies. Again, the USA was the leading contributor (24.9%), with China also emerging as a significant contributor (24.7%) in this field. For both samples, the contribution of smaller countries (especially Scandinavian countries, Greece, and Ireland) became more noteworthy when considered in relation to population size and research spending. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the leading roles of both the USA and the UK in publishing clinical papers. The emerging role of China can be seen, particularly related to CAM studies. Taking into account size of population and economic power, countries like France, Germany, Italy, and Spain provide small contributions. In contrast, smaller countries like Australia, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, and Sweden also play major roles.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

References

1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement 2005The Cochrane Library 1997Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German 2007Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews 2004Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 2007Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials 2002Development of The Cochrane Collaboration's Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials 2003Biomedical publication—global profile and trend

Cited by

2013Visualization of evidence‐based medicine domain knowledge: production and citation of cochrane systematic reviews

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.