The landscape of systematic reviews in urology (1998 to 2015): an assessment of methodological quality

Abstract

The number of systematic reviews published in the urology literature has exponentially increased, year by year, but their methodological quality has stagnated. To enhance the validity and impact of systematic reviews, all authors and editors must apply established methodological standards.

Use of the IDEAL framework in the urological literature: where are we in 2018?

“…Lastly, Han et al. formally assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) as a validated assessment tool, finding no evidence of improvement. In aggregate, these studies show a mixed picture, providing both some reason for optimism as well as indicating the need for further efforts towards raising methodological and reporting standards in urology not limited to surgical innovation which is the focus of IDEAL.…”

Reaching for the stars – rating the quality of systematic reviews with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2

“…The number of published systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in the urological literature has dramatically increased in recent years . This is good news given their importance in guiding clinical decision‐making, guideline development and health policy.…”

Raising the bar for systematic reviews with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

“…There is therefore more than one good reason for journals to care about the quality of systematic reviews.Meanwhile, a study in this issue of the BJUI [4] shows that the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature is modest, varies substantially, and has failed to improve over time. This contrasts to randomised controlled trials' reporting quality that appears to have improved substantially over time, probably due to increased awareness among clinical researchers, urology readers and journal reviewers [4,5]. The study [4] used the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), a validated 11-item instrument, to measure the methodological quality of systematic reviews with higher scores reflecting better quality.The authors [4] surveyed four major urological journals and compared the periods .…”

“…This contrasts to randomised controlled trials' reporting quality that appears to have improved substantially over time, probably due to increased awareness among clinical researchers, urology readers and journal reviewers [4,5]. The study [4] used the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), a validated 11-item instrument, to measure the methodological quality of systematic reviews with higher scores reflecting better quality.The authors [4] surveyed four major urological journals and compared the periods . Despite a dramatic increase in the number of systematic reviews published each year, methodological quality has stagnated with mean AMSTAR scores AE standard deviations of 4.n = 57).…”

“…Meanwhile, a study in this issue of the BJUI [4] shows that the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature is modest, varies substantially, and has failed to improve over time. This contrasts to randomised controlled trials' reporting quality that appears to have improved substantially over time, probably due to increased awareness among clinical researchers, urology readers and journal reviewers [4,5].…”