Low Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature (2016-2018)

Ref ID 33
First Author M. Ding
Journal UROLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2020
URL https://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090-4295(20)30021-2/fulltext
Keywords Protocols
Publication bias
Risk of bias
Disclosure
Urology
Low reporting quality
Problem(s) No registered or published protocol
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
Single reviewer / lack of double checking
Poor consideration of publication bias
Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently
Number of systematic reviews included 144
Summary of Findings Methodological quality of the included 144 urological systematic reviews was low. Limitations included protocol registration (36%); explanation of included study designs (55%); duplicate study selection (81%); duplicate data extraction (45%); excluded studies justified (10%); details of included studies (69%); risk of bias (74%); funding of included studies assessed (6%); appropriate meta-analyses (65%); risk of bias incorporated into meta-analysis (72%); risk of bias incorporated into conclusion (74%); discussion of heterogeneity (30%; assessment of publication bias (54%); reporting potential conflicts of interest (74%).
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? Yes