Quality of urological systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO

Ref ID 32
First Author S. Khaleel
Journal BJU INTERNATIONAL
Year Of Publishing 2019
URL https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/bju.14742?download=true
Keywords Protocols
Transparency
Publication bias
Heterogeneity
Language
Urology
Problem(s) Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Poor consideration of publication bias
Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
Language restriction
Number of systematic reviews included 576
Summary of Findings From the 576 included urological systematic review protocols in PROSPERO, roughly half o (55%) considered the issue of heterogeneity. Only a quarter addressed the issue of publication bias (28.3%). The majority of registrations (94.3%) declared no conflict of interest for the systematic review authors, but none indicated the intent to collect information on conflict of interest reporting and funding sources of included studies. With regard to language restriction, one-third of protocols (33.5%) stated they would include eligible studies irrespective of language of publication, whereas a similar percentage (32.1%) specified limitation to certain languages, usually English (32.6%).
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