| 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Canada |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To assess the methodological quality (AMSTAR 2) of urological systematic reviews published in 5 major urology journals between January 2016 to December 2018. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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%). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 144 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 260 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |