- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
- 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 |
Cochrane Low reporting quality Non-Cochrane reviews Low methodological quality |
| 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? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |