- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
- 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 |