Article Text

other Versions

Alignment of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effectiveness with global burden-of-disease data: a bibliographic analysis
  1. Sze Lin Yoong1,2,3,
  2. Alix Hall2,3,
  3. Christopher M Williams1,2,3,4,
  4. Eliza Skelton2,
  5. Christopher Oldmeadow2,3,
  6. John Wiggers1,2,3,
  7. Chante Karimkhani5,
  8. Lindsay N Boyers6,
  9. Robert P Dellavalle7,8,9,
  10. John Hilton10,
  11. Luke Wolfenden1,2,3
  1. 1Hunter New England Population Health, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2The University of Newcastle, School of Medicine and Public Health, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia
  4. 4The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  5. 5Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, USA
  6. 6Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington DC, USA
  7. 7Dermatology Service, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado, USA
  8. 8University of Colorado, School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA
  9. 9Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA
  10. 10Cochrane Editorial Unit, The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sze Lin Yoong, Hunter New England Population Health, Locked Bag 10, Wallsend, NSW 2287, Australia; Serene.Yoong{at}


Background Systematic reviews of high-quality evidence are used to inform policy and practice. To improve community health, the production of such reviews should align with burden of disease. This study aims to assess if the volume of research output from systematic reviews proportionally aligns with burden of disease assessed using percentages of mortality and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

Methods A cross-sectional audit of reviews published between January 2012 and August 2013 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) was undertaken. Percentages of mortality and DALYs were obtained from the 2010 Global Burden of Disease study. Standardised residual differences (SRD) based on percentages of mortality and DALYs were calculated, where conditions with SRD of more than or less than three were considered overstudied or understudied, respectively.

Results 1029 reviews from CDSR and 1928 reviews from DARE were examined. There was a significant correlation between percentage DALYs and systematic reviews published in CDSR and DARE databases (CDSR: r=0.68, p=0.001; DARE: r=0.60, p<0.001). There was no significant correlation between percentage mortality and number of systematic reviews published in either database (CDSR: r=0.34, p=0.14; DARE: r=0.22, p=0.34). Relative to percentage of mortality, mental and behavioural disorders, musculoskeletal conditions and other non-communicable diseases were overstudied. Maternal disorders were overstudied relative to percentages of mortality and DALYs in CDSR.

Conclusions The focus of systematic reviews is moderately correlated with DALYs. A number of conditions may be overstudied relative to percentage of mortality particularly in the context of health and medical reviews.


Statistics from

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.