Common mistakes in reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Ref ID	225
First Author	M. Shamsi
Journal	HEALTH PROMOTION PERSPECTIVES
Year Of Publishing	2020
URL	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7146040/pdf/hpp-10-97.pdf
Keywords	• Oncology • Risk of bias • Searching
Problem(s)	• Errors or omissions in search strategy • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
Number of systematic reviews included	1
Summary of Findings	The authors highlight a number of errors in the conduct of one systematic review of the incidence of prostate cancer published in 2019 including: inappropriate use of Google Scholar as a search database; search using "prevalence" keywords which is different to "incidence"; typo error in number of studies included; results interpreted without incorporating quality assessment; and the authors assert that the tests for publication bias in assessment of "incidence" data conducted in this review are unnecessary as these are not studies of treatment effects.
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?	N/A