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	• Urology • Protocols • Publication bias • Low reporting quality • Risk of bias • Disclosure
Problem(s)	• 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 • No registered or published protocol • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes