| 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 |
• Urology • Grey literature • Publication bias • Low reporting quality • Searching • Risk of bias |
| Problem(s) |
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Poor consideration of publication bias • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review • Insufficient literature searches • Grey literature excluded • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided |
| 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 systematic reviews published in 4 major urological journals from 1998 to 2008. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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half of all systematic reviews performed a systematic literature search that included at least 2 databases (49.1%) or unpublished studies (31.6%), or provided a list of included and excluded studies (45.6%).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). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 57 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 217 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |