Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 4, 2026
Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
Published on: October 24, 2019
[Increased number of systematic reviews in the Netherlands in the period 1991-2000]
K P Grootens1, W J Assendelft, A J Overbeke
1Universitair Medisch Centrum St Radboud, afd. Psychiatrie, Reinier Postlaan 10, 6500 HB Nijmegen. k.grootens@psy.umcn.nl
Objective:
To survey systematic reviews (SRs) as publication type in the Netherlands, with emphasis on differences between Cochrane reviews and SRs in printed journals.
Design:
Bibliometric study.
Method:
A systematic search was carried out in Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for published systematic reviews of Dutch origin in the period 1991-2000. For each SR, the year of publication, the number of original articles included, the subject matter and the impact factor of the journal were identified.
Results:
A total of 289 SRs were retrieved, of which 12% were Cochrane reviews. The number of SRs increased exponentially during this decade. The majority (56%) of the SRs concerned a therapeutic intervention. SRs were published in journals with a moderate to good impact factor (median impact factor 2.59). On average, compared to SRs published in the Cochrane Library, the SRs published in the general medical literature included significantly more original articles (28.8 versus 13.7; p < 0.05). This may be caused by the fact that the clinical questions for Cochrane reviews are more focused as compared with non-Cochrane SRs or by the fact that Cochrane review groups may have more stringent quality requirements for inclusion of an article in a review.
Conclusions:
The SR as a publication type showed a rapid growth in one decade and was published in important medical journals. Cochrane reviews represented a substantial proportion of the overall number of SRs in the Netherlands.
