Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008

Ref ID 28
First Author S. L. MacDonald
Journal THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2010
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20639030/
Keywords Grey literature
Publication bias
Risk of bias
Urology
Low reporting quality
Searching
Problem(s) Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Insufficient literature searches
Grey literature excluded
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Poor consideration of publication bias
Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
Number of systematic reviews included 57
Summary of Findings The mean AMSTAR score for the included 57 urologic systematic reviews was 4.8 ( standard deviation 2.0) points. Fewer than half of all systematic reviews performed a systematic literature search that included at least 2 databases (49.1%) or unpublished studies (31.6%), or provided a list of included and excluded studies (45.6%). Of the systematic reviews 63.2% assessed and documented the methodological quality of included studies. 63.2% assessed and documented the methodological quality of included studies. Only 14.0% of studies factored methodological study quality into the conclusions. The likelihood of publication bias and the risk of conflict of interest were explicitly considered by the authors of 9 (15.8%) and 3 (5.3%) of the 57 systematic reviews, respectively. Systematic reviews with The Cochrane Collaboration authorship affiliation had a higher mean AMSTAR score than those with no such reported affiliation (6.5 (SD 1.2) vs 4.4 (SD 1.9) points (p <0.001).
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