Prostate Artery Embolisation: Poor Design and Reporting Impact the Value of Current Systematic Reviews

Ref ID	219
First Author	T. D. Vreugdenburg
Journal	EUROPEAN UROLOGY
Year Of Publishing	2018
URL	https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29273408/
Keywords	• Publication bias • Expertise • Grey literature • Protocols • Searching • Risk of bias • Surgery • Single reviewer • Low methodological quality • Transparency • Disclosure
Problem(s)	• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Poor consideration of publication bias • No registered or published protocol • Insufficient literature searches • Grey literature excluded • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data
Number of systematic reviews included	9
Summary of Findings	From the 9 included systematic reviews of prostate artery embolization, the median AMSTAR score was 4 out of 11 (range 0–7). None of the reviews included were prospectively registered on PROSPERO. The most common methodological concerns were related to comprehensive searches (33.3%), inclusion of grey literature (0.0%), and evaluation of publication bias (0.0%).
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	No