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	• 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
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half of all systematic reviews performed a systematic literature search that included at least 2 databases (49.1%) or unpublished studies (31.6%), or provided a list of included and excluded studies (45.6%).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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	No