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 Grey literature
Publication bias
Risk of bias
Disclosure
Urology
Low reporting quality
Searching
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No