| Ref ID | 30 |
| First Author | J. L. Han |
| Journal | BJU INTERNATIONAL |
| Year Of Publishing | 2017 |
| URL | https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/bju.13653?download=true |
| Keywords |
• Urology • Transparency • Disclosure • Protocols • Grey literature • Error • Publication bias • Low reporting quality • Risk of bias |
| Problem(s) |
• No registered or published protocol • Grey literature excluded • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing • Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis • Poor consideration of publication bias • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • No quality assessment undertaken or reported |
| 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 in the urology literature published in PubMed and four major urology journals between 2013-2015 |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | The number of systematic reviews published in the urology literature has exponentially increased, year by year, but methodological quality has stagnated. Less than 50% of reviews met at least 5 out of the 11 AMSTAR criteria. The mean AMSTAR score from the 125 included urological systematic reviews published in the 2013–2015 period was 4.8 (standard deviation 2.4) out of 11. Previously, the mean AMSTAR score for the period 2009–2012 (n = 113), was 5.4 (SD 2.3); and for the period 1998–2008 (n = 57), it was 4.8 (2.0). The least commonly met AMSTAR criteria from the 2013–2015 period were ‘conflict of interest statement included’ (for both the systematic review and included studies) (4.0%); ‘status of publication used as an inclusion criterion’ (7.2%); and ‘a priori design provided’ (16.0%). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 125 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 490 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |