gms | German Medical Science

Background/research question: The Cochrane Nutrition and Physical Activity (NaPA) Thematic Group was established to produce reviews that meet relevant stakeholder needs and to maximise the evidence use from such reviews via comprehensive dissemination strategies. This study assessed the online dissemination strategies of Cochrane reviews in the NaPA field published so far.

Methods: We analysed bibliographic data collected within a scoping review [1]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched up to 14.05.2024 for reviews of NaPA interventions or strategies for healthy or at-risk populations. Dissemination was assessed using open-access review information on Cochrane website and Altmetric data that measure the attention towards academic articles via their online mentions using Altmetric score and their citations using Dimensions score. Data were analysed using relative frequencies, correlations and binary logistic regressions.

Results: Out of 1,912 search records, 249 Cochrane reviews, published between 1999–2024, were included. The reviews focused mainly on nutrition (188/249), all had a plain language summary (PLS) in 2–17 languages (predominantly in English: 249, Spanish: 248 and Arabic: 203), included 0–195 studies (median=13), and conducted a meta-analysis (202/249). The reviews were mainly mentioned by Twitter/X (242/249), Facebook (210/249), and Wikipedia (172/249). The Altmetric score ranged between 3–4,111 (median=48) and scores of 32–4,111 in 151 reviews were rated within 5% of all research outputs traced by Altmetric. The Dimensions score ranged between 1–2,700 (median=82). Altmetric and Dimension scores were positively correlated (rho=0.51, p<0.01).

Higher Altmetric scores were associated with more PLS languages (OR=1.34 [95% CI: 1.18–1.52]), earlier publication year (OR=0.91 [0.84–0.98]), and more studies in review (OR=2.64 [1.44–4.83]), but not with meta-analysis (coded as yes/no) or review focus on nutrition (yes/no). Higher Dimension scores were associated with more PLS languages (OR=1.20 [1.04–1.37]), earlier publication year (OR=0.68 [0.61–0.77]), more studies in review (OR=5.88 [2.83–12.25]), and presence of meta-analysis (OR=8.88 [3.10–25.42]), but not with review focus on nutrition.

Conclusion: Online attention towards Cochrane reviews in the NaPA field is high, mainly due to mentions in the social media and academic publications. Future studies need to investigate if and how the relevant stakeholders use the evidence from such reviews in practice.

Competing interests: None