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

Louise Olsbro Rosengaard (), Mikkel Zola Andersen, Jacob Rosenberg and Siv Fonnes
Additional contact information
Louise Olsbro Rosengaard: Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte
Mikkel Zola Andersen: Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte
Jacob Rosenberg: Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte
Siv Fonnes: Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte

Scientometrics, 2025, vol. 130, issue 5, No 14, 2874 pages

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: Bibliometrics; Research waste; Altmetrics; Evidence-based practice; Knowledge discovery (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05302-5 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05302-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05302-5

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().