title: Do clinical experts rely on the Cochrane library?
abstract: In part because of limited public access, Cochrane reviews are underused in the United States compared with other developed nations. To assess use of these reviews by opinion leaders, we examined citation of Cochrane reviews in the Clinical Expert Series of Obstetrics & Gynecology from inception through June of 2007. We reviewed all 54 articles for mention of Cochrane reviews, then searched for potentially relevant Cochrane reviews that the authors could have cited. Thirty-six of 54 Clinical Expert Series articles had one or more relevant Cochrane reviews published at least two calendar quarters before the Clinical Expert Series article. Of these 36 articles, 19 (53%) cited one or more Cochrane reviews. We identified 187 instances of relevant Cochrane reviews, of which 40 (21%) were cited in the Clinical Expert Series articles. No temporal trends were evident in citation of Cochrane reviews. Although about one half of Clinical Expert Series articles cited relevant Cochrane reviews, most eligible reviews were not referenced. Wider use of Cochrane reviews could strengthen the scientific basis of this popular series.
authors.affiliation: Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA. dgrimes@fhi.org
authors.forename: David A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Grimes
authors.forename: Melody Y
authors.initials: MY
authors.lastname: Hou
authors.forename: Laureen M
authors.initials: LM
authors.lastname: Lopez
authors.forename: Kavita
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Nanda
mesh_terms: D015706:Bibliometrics; D002985:Clinical Protocols; D016206:Databases, Bibliographic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D006801:Humans; D007255:Information Services / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012196:Review Literature as Topic