title: Converting systematic reviews to Cochrane format: a cross-sectional survey of Australian authors of systematic reviews.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Despite the growing reputation and subject coverage of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, many systematic reviews continue to be published solely in paper-based health care journals. This study was designed to determine why authors choose to publish their systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration and if they might be interested in converting their reviews to Cochrane format for publication in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cross-sectional survey of Australian primary authors of systematic reviews not published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews identified from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We identified 88 systematic reviews from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness with an Australian as the primary author. We surveyed 52 authors for whom valid contact information was available. The response rate was 88 per cent (46/52). Ten authors replied without completing the survey, leaving 36 valid surveys for analysis. The most frequently cited reasons for not undertaking a Cochrane review were: lack of time (78%), the need to undergo specific Cochrane training (46%), unwillingness to update reviews (36%), difficulties with the Cochrane process (26%) and the review topic already registered with the Cochrane Collaboration (21%). (Percentages based on completed responses to individual questions.) Nearly half the respondents would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Dedicated time emerged as the most important factor in facilitating the potential conversion process. Other factors included navigating the Cochrane system, assistance with updating and financial support. Eighty-six per cent were willing to have their review converted to Cochrane format by another author.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Time required to complete a Cochrane review and the need for specific training are the primary reasons why some authors publish systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration. Encouragingly, almost half of the authors would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Based on the current number of reviews in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, this could result in more than 700 additional Cochrane reviews. Ways of supporting these authors and how to provide dedicated time to convert systematic reviews needs further consideration.
authors.affiliation: Australasian Cochrane Centre, Monash Institute of Health Services Research, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. jpiehl@bigpond.com
authors.forename: Janet H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Piehl
authors.forename: Sally
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Green
authors.forename: Steve
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: McDonald
mesh_terms: D001290:Attitude; D001315:Australia; D001319:Authorship; D015706:Bibliometrics; D003299:Cooperative Behavior; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D003625:Data Collection; D016206:Databases, Bibliographic; D003657:Decision Making; D007390:International Agencies; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D017712:Peer Review, Research; D012108:Research Personnel / Q000523:psychology; D012196:Review Literature as Topic; D013995:Time