Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user Harriet MacLehose

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user John Hilton

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


Cochrane’s editorial and publishing policies can now be found on the Cochrane Library Editorial policies page. Cochrane authors and editorial teams should refer to the Cochrane Library as the primary source of information on this policy. For editorial guidance on policies the EPPR remains the primary location.

Cochrane Reviews

Cochrane Reviews should only be withdrawn under exceptional circumstances, for example, if there is a concern about the conduct or reporting of the Cochrane Review. Reasons that do not fall under exceptional circumstances include questions related to the usage and currency of the review in question, the availability of new studies or information, how this information could impact the review and whether there are new methods that could make important changes to the review.

Examples of reasons for withdrawing a Cochrane Review
  • Serious error in a Cochrane Review. Following the conclusions of the published review could result in harm to patients or populations of interest (other than known adverse effects); and/or there are factual errors in describing one or more included studies that risk misinforming implementation or investment decisions about an intervention; and/or the reported treatment effect is inconsistent with the real effect shown in the reported data. Also see Serious errors in published Cochrane Reviews.
  • Confirmed serious error in a Cochrane Review as a direct result of the retraction of an included study. This could occur if studies included in a Cochrane Review are retracted from publication, and an analysis shows that the removal of the retracted studies from the analyses in the Cochrane Review could lead to a serious error (defined above). Also see Serious errors in published Cochrane Reviews.
  • Scientific misconduct in the Cochrane Review. This could refer to fraud or other scientific misconduct in the preparation of the review.

  • Serious breach of Cochrane’s conflict of interest policy. A ruling by Cochrane’s Funding Arbiters that a Cochrane Review has seriously breached Cochrane’s conflict of interest policy.

Withdrawing a Cochrane Review generates a new citation version. For Cochrane Reviews, this includes a new entry in PubMed.

Protocols for Cochrane Reviews

Withdrawal policy: change in policy for protocols

As of March 2022, protocols must not be withdrawn for any reason other than serious error. The current withdrawals policy can now be found on the Cochrane Library Editorial policies page.

Prior to March 2022, protocols were also withdrawn for one of the following reasons: 

  • The protocol was out of date and did not meet the current methodological standards of Cochrane.
  • Authors had made no progress with the protocol in XX months/years, and new authors were

The decision to withdraw a published Cochrane Review (or protocol) should generally be made between the authors and the Cochrane Review Group (CRG) editorial team. The reason for the withdrawal should be given in the Published Notes section of the protocol or review. When a protocol or review is withdrawn, it will be flagged in the published version in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) as ‘withdrawn’ and only the title, coversheet, and reason for withdrawal will be published.

Published Cochrane Reviews (including protocols) are not removed from the CDSR. (Up to 16 December 2014, withdrawn protocols were removed from the CDSR after one issue of publication. From this date onwards, withdrawn protocols remain published to maintain the public record of publication and to complement the inclusion in PROSPERO.) A review may be withdrawn temporarily (suspended) and can be reinstated once it is considered satisfactory by the authors and the CRG's editorial team; otherwise it should remain withdrawn. Published versions that precede a withdrawn version are available in the CDSR by clicking on the ‘Other versions’ tab in the article.

Protocols that have not been converted into full Cochrane Reviews within two years of publication should generally be withdrawn from the CDSR.

Reasons for withdrawing Cochrane Protocols and Reviews from the CDSR

Protocols for a Cochrane Review

  • The authors have requested this protocol to be withdrawn. The reason/s is/are [insert reason(s)].
  • The protocol is out of date and does not meet the current methodological standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.
  • Authors have made no progress with this protocol in XX months/years. New authors are being sought to take over this protocol.
  • The protocol has been republished as a Diagnostic Test Accuracy Protocol (provide full reference).The protocol has had been split into these protocols (provide full references).
  • The protocol has been merged with another (provide full reference).
  • Title reassignment: A new protocol will be published by the review authors (provide list of authors).
  • The Cochrane Review Group was unable to maintain contact with the contact author. The co-authors are unable to take over this protocol. New authors are being sought to take over this protocol.

Cochrane Reviews

...

  • or merged with other protocols.

With the introduction of the new policy in March 2022, the decisions or events described above are covered by Editorial Notes. See also Editorial note: editorial guidance.

Withdrawing a protocol for a Cochrane Review generated a new citation version.

Up to 16 December 2014, withdrawn protocols were removed from the CDSR after one issue of publication. From this date onwards, withdrawn protocols remain published to maintain the public record of publication and to complement the inclusion in PROSPERO.

Withdrawal followed by republication 

The Editors may accept for publication a revised version of a Cochrane Review that addresses the issues raised in the withdrawn notice. Any such version will be re-evaluated using standard Cochrane editorial process, and may then be approved for publication (as a separate, subsequent version) in consultation with the Editor in Chief

...

.