Methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2012

Ref ID 27
First Author K. Corbyons
Journal THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2015
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26025501/
Keywords • Urology
• Grey literature
• Publication bias
• Low reporting quality
• Searching
• Risk of bias
• Disclosure
Problem(s) • Single reviewer / lack of double checking
• Poor consideration of publication bias
• No quality assessment undertaken or reported
• Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
• Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
• Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
• Grey literature excluded
• Insufficient literature searches
• Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country United States
Checklists • AMSTAR 1
Aim To assess the methodological quality (AMSTAR) of urological systematic reviews published from 2009 to 2012.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings The mean AMSTAR score for the 113 included urological systematic reviews published 2009 to 2012 was 5.3 (standard deviation 2.3) points. Limitations included: Assessment of scientific quality of included studies was used in formulating conclusions (77.9%); conflict of interest reporting (2.7%), reporting of included and excluded studies (23.0%), and assessment for publication bias (24.8%).
Number of systematic reviews included 113
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 587
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description