Skip to main content
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 1999 Jul 31;319(7205):317. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7205.317a

What is publication?

Cross references to updates of systematic reviews should be published

Samuel Erny 1, Hilal Maradit-Kremers 1
PMCID: PMC1126947  PMID: 10426758

Editor—In an editorial Smith mentions the BMJ’s commitment to publishing versions of systematic reviews already available in the Cochrane Library.1 We would like to know whether the BMJ also plans to publish substantive updates of such reviews, either electronically or in print.

Reviews and review updates published only in the Cochrane Library are not indexed in Medline or Embase. This would change if abstracts of, or at least cross references to, substantive updates of Cochrane reviews were published in the BMJ’s print edition. Without such indexing much of the medical community may not be aware when updates of meta-analyses become available, since familiarity with the Cochrane Library and access to the Internet are still far from universal.

We are making this inquiry with one specific Cochrane review, on malaria chemoprophylaxis, in mind.2 Besides being published in the BMJ, it was commented on in several letters in the journal,3 and the Cochrane collaborators have published a substantially revised version of it.4 The authors’ conclusions regarding the tolerability of mefloquine have changed dramatically, and on some points directly contradict the earlier review published in the BMJ. The update is based on the same data and the same analysis, but the previously biased conclusions have been corrected. For the first time the authors now also state in their abstract that their meta-analysis provides no evidence for or against higher levels of toxicity and withdrawal with mefloquine compared with other chemoprophylactic regimens.

This example illustrates how important it is that cross references to substantive review updates are as widely accessible as possible. Because online publication will not be indexed it is not an ideal solution. Still, electronic publication of review updates or cross references might be a first step. The more general question of how to index electronic publications in peer reviewed journals will need to be addressed. Will the logical consequence of the eBMJ and other electronically expanded peer reviewed journals eventually be a kind of eMedline, an index to peer reviewed electronic publications? Whether such indexing eventually becomes available, and in what form, will certainly influence the fate of this type of publication. It might help to answer the question “What kind of publication is electronic publication in a peer reviewed journal?”

Footnotes

Competing interests: Both authors work for Roche, which makes mefloquine.

References

  • 1.Smith R. What is publication? BMJ. 1999;318:142. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7177.142. . (16 January.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Croft A, Garner P. Mefloquine to prevent malaria: a systematic review of trials. BMJ. 1997;315:1412–1416. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7120.1412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mefloquine to prevent malaria [letters] BMJ. 1998;316:1980–1981. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Croft AMJ, Garner P. Cochrane Library. Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software; 1999. Mefloquine for preventing malaria in non-immune adult travellers. [Google Scholar]
BMJ. 1999 Jul 31;319(7205):317.

Editor’s reply


Erny and Maradit-Kremers raise a difficult and important issue. We know that many—indeed, perhaps almost all—studies published in medical journals are eventually rendered irrelevant by new studies. Some are flatly contradicted. In the paper world there isn’t much that we can do about this. We always look sympathetically on studies that refute material that we’ve already published, and if we notice a study elsewhere that refutes something we’ve published then we will try and pick up on it somewhere in the journal—perhaps in Minerva. Inevitably, this is a haphazard process, and we no doubt miss most of the studies that cast doubt on material we’ve published.

I have argued before that an electronic report on a study remains alive in a way that a paper version never can.1-1 We might thus ask authors when they publish in the BMJ to commit themselves to updating their studies, particularly if they are systematic reviews, rather in the way that the Cochrane Collaboration does. This seems, however, an enormous step, and we are not ready to take it yet. What we probably can do at the moment is to ask authors of Cochrane reviews to alert us when they update their review. We could then provide a hotlink from our website to the latest version of the review on the Cochrane database, and if the conclusion of the review is considerably altered then we might ask the authors to send us a note that we could post on our website and perhaps include in the paper version of the journal. We will explore this further.

References

  • 1-1.Smith R. Something for everyone. BMJ. 1997;315:1696. [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES