- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Poor consideration of publication bias
- 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 |
Protocols Surgery Transparency Grey literature Expertise Publication bias Risk of bias Disclosure Searching Low methodological quality Single reviewer |
| 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? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | No |