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 Urology
Low reporting quality
Searching
Non-Cochrane reviews
Journalology/ Publication science
Problem(s) Lack of supplementary searches beyond databases
Grey literature excluded
Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
Number of systematic reviews included 483
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.
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? No