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
Number of systematic reviews included	113
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%).
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