Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol, 2020, Andersen et al.

[Trish]

Highlights

• •
  Cochrane reviews took a median of 2 years to publish after publication of the protocol.
  
  
• •
  For 11% of reviews, the time from protocol to review publication was more than 5 years.
  
  
• •
  Cochrane reviews have been publishing slower in the past 5 years than previously.
  
  
• •
  A large variation existed between median publication times of different Cochrane Review Groups.
  

Abstract
Objectives
The objective of the study is to examine the time from publication of the protocol for a Cochrane review to publication of the Cochrane review for the entire Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).

Study Design and Settings
Cochrane reviews from the CDSR published between 1995 and 2019 were assessed. Characteristics of the reviews were extracted, and time from publication of protocol to publication of review was calculated. These times were grouped for relevant characteristics and visualized through charts and tables to illustrate trends.

Results
Of the total 8,201 reviews in the CDSR, 6,764 were included. The median publication time was 2 years (range 0 days to 21.7 years). Reviews that were published more than 5 years after the protocol made up 11% of all included reviews, whereas 19% of reviews were published within a year. The median publication time for the individual Cochrane Review Groups ranged from 15 to 39 months.

Conclusion
Half of Cochrane reviews were published later than Cochrane's aim of 2 years. Furthermore, the Cochrane Review Groups' median times from publication of protocol to publication of review varied widely.
_______________

Cochrane anticipates that the writing of a protocol will take 2 to 6 months, whereas the writing of a complete review should take 1 to 2 years [18].

Conclusion
In conclusion, the publication time for Cochrane reviews has increased throughout their existence. Of all published reviews, half had a publication time longer than 2 years. Furthermore, this number increased to 55% for reviews published during the past 10 years and further to 60% for reviews published in the past 5 years. In addition, a considerable difference in publication time has existed between different Cochrane Review Groups.

 

[Peter T]

Even compared to these disappointing time scales the replacement ME/CFS Exercise Review is a disaster, 4 to 5 years in, depending on where you set the start point, yet still no published protocol. We are already well beyond the 39 month upper median total publication time and still no protocol.

Given Cochrane themselves anticipate the time to full publication of some four times that taken to produce a protocol, does this mean that we will can still expect to wait for a further 16 to 20 years or longer for the completed replacement review? How on earth can Cochrane still justify not retracting the old 2019 review that they accepted was seriously flawed at its publication five years ago? What happened to the previous promises of urgency made in 2019.

Either Cochrane has had a change of heart and does not intend to replace the current harmful Exercise review despite previous promises or they are so incompetent to render them irrelevant to clinical care. Unfortunately how long will consumers of their reviews take to recognise that incompetence and stop trying to impose their recommendations on real life patients.

[edited to correct my arithmetic]

 

[rvallee]

Unless it's a pet project borne out of personal obsession, like the weird and unnecessary 'review' of microclot treatments. Even though Cochrane only reviews pragmatic trial evidence, and there aren't any pragmatic trials, or any trials, or even treatments, since it's still at a research stage.

Cochrane is really just a private club of influencers that serves the self-interest of the people who are part of the club. And as we recently learned, Bastian is back in the fold, which likely explains why the exercise review process has been completely stalled for years.