An Analysis of the Evidence Underpinning the American Urologic Association Clinical Practice Guidelines

Ref ID	792
First Author	A.M. Pena
Journal	UROLOGY
Year Of Publishing	2022
URL	https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009042952101195X?casa_token=PzQJT1_eghAAAAAA:cK5UFePGWiNw2mJHtHKvR3uNm8Iy4bJhMPeSVQe_QKYEQhB_HWmiVP3LcObny7xPw-2uB6dbDOk#sec0001
Keywords	• Low methodological quality • Non-Cochrane reviews • Low reporting quality • Cochrane
Problem(s)	• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Low reporting (PRISMA) quality • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included	120
Summary of Findings	From 120 included systematic reviews underpinning 30 American Urologic Association clinical practice guidelines from 2015–2021. Mean percent adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 was 65.4% –d 55.2% respectively. Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration scored higher on AMSTAR-2 compared to non-Cochrane (z = -4.41, P <.01) and a positive correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 scores (r = 0.56, P <.001) was determined.
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