The Quality of Literature Search Reporting in Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature (1998-2021)

Ref ID 895
First Author B. Norling
Journal JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2023
URL https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000003190
Keywords • Non-Cochrane reviews
• Urology
• Searching
• Low reporting quality
• Journalology/ Publication science
Problem(s) • Lack of supplementary searches beyond databases
• Grey literature excluded
• Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country United States
Checklists • PRISMA 2020
Aim To evaluate to what extent systematic reviews published in the urological literature follow best practices for the reporting of searches.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings From 483 included systematic reviews in urology from 5 major urological journals from January 1998 to December 2021. Most reviews (88.6%; 428/483) reported searching 2 or more electronic databases. The median number of databases reported was 3 (IQR 2, 4). While most reviews noted which databases were searched, they were less consistent in describing the search process. Approximately one-quarter (127; 26.3%) did not provide details on whether multi-database searching was employed. Searches were supplemented by additional search techniques with variable frequency. Citation searching (320; 66.3%) was the most common technique reported. Only 9.3% (45) reported contacting experts, manufacturers, or others, and 5.6% (47) reported using additional methods, such as the related articles functionality in PubMed. A search of dedicated databases of the “gray literature” was reported by 6.2% of SRs. Less than 1 in 4 SRs reported a full search strategy (112; 23.2%), less than one-third (156; 32.3%) explicitly reported that no language restriction was used, and less than one-quarter (92; 19.0%) explicitly reported no time-period restriction.
Number of systematic reviews included 483
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 483
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description