- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
- 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 |