Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012;7(5):e36626.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036626. Epub 2012 May 4.

Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies

Joanne Yaffe  1 , Paul Montgomery, Sally Hopewell, Lindsay Dianne Shepard
Affiliations

Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies

Joanne Yaffe et al. PLoS One. 2012.

Abstract

Background: There is no specific guidance for the reporting of Cochrane systematic reviews that do not have studies eligible for inclusion. As a result, the reporting of these so-called "empty reviews" may vary across reviews. This research explores the incidence of empty systematic reviews in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The CDSR) and describes their current characteristics.

Methodology/principal findings: Empty reviews within The CDSR as of 15 August 2010 were identified, extracted, and coded for analysis. Review group, original publication year, and time since last update, as well as number of studies listed as excluded, awaiting assessment, or on-going within empty reviews were examined. 376 (8.7%) active reviews in The CDSR reported no included studies. At the time of data collection, 45 (84.9%) of the Cochrane Collaboration's 53 Review Groups sustained at least one empty review, with the number of empty reviews for each of these 45 groups ranging from 1 to 35 (2.2-26.9%). Time since original publication of empty reviews ranged from 0 to 15 years with a mean of 4.2 years (SD = 3.4). Time since last assessed as up-to-date ranged from 0 to 12 years with a mean of 2.8 years (SD = 2.2). The number of excluded studies reported in these reviews ranged from 0 to 124, with an average of 9.6 per review (SD = 14.5). Eighty-eight (23.4%) empty reviews reported no excluded studies, studies awaiting assessment, or on-going studies.

Conclusions: There is a substantial number of empty reviews in The CDSR, and there is some variation in the reporting and updating of empty reviews across Cochrane Review Groups. This variation warrants further analysis, and may indicate a need to develop guidance for the reporting of empty systematic reviews in The CDSR.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: PM is the author of several empty reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Empty Reviews by Year of Original Publication, as of August 15, 2010 (N = 376).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Pagliaro L, Bruzzi P, Bobbio M. Why are Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews undervalued by physicians as an aid for clinical decision-making? Digest Liver Dis. 2010;42:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2009.07.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. 2008. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available: www.cochrane-handbook.org via the Internet. Accessed 9 May 2011.
    1. Lang A, Edwards N, Fleiszer A. Empty systematic reviews: Hidden perils and lessons learned. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:595–597. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.01.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cooper H. Applied social research methods series volume 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2010. Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach 4th edition.
    1. Green S, Higgins JPT, Schünemann HJ, Becker L. Response to paper by Lang A, Edwards N, and Fleiszer. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:598–599. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.02.001. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms