Premium
The landscape of systematic reviews in urology (1998 to 2015): an assessment of methodological quality
Author(s) -
Han Julia L.,
Gandhi Shreyas,
Bockoven Crystal G.,
Narayan Vikram M.,
Dahm Philipp
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/bju.13653
Subject(s) - systematic review , medicine , urology , medline , law , political science
Objectives To assess the quality of published systematic reviews in the urology literature (an extension of our previously reported work), as high‐quality systematic reviews play a paramount role in informing evidence‐based clinical practice. Materials and Methods Our focus was on systematic reviews in the urology literature that incorporated questions of prevention and therapy. To identify such reviews published during a 36‐month period (2013–2015), we systematically searched PubMed and hand‐searched the table of contents of four major urology journals. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of those reviews, using the 11‐point ‘Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews’ ( AMSTAR ) instrument. We performed protocol‐driven analyses of the data from our present study's 36‐month period alone, as well as in aggregate with the data from our previously reported work's study periods (2009–2012 and 1998–2008). Results In our literature search of the 36‐month period (2013–2015), we initially identified 490 possibly relevant reviews, of which 125 met our inclusion criteria. The most common topic of reviews for the 2013–2015 period was oncology (51.2%; n = 64), followed by voiding dysfunction (21.6%; n = 27). The mean [standard deviation ( SD )] AMSTAR score in the 2013–2015 period ( n = 125) was 4.8 (2.4); 2009–2012 ( n = 113), 5.4 (2.3); and 1998–2008 ( n = 57), 4.8 (2.0) ( P = 0.127). In the 2013–2015 period, the mean ( SD ) AMSTAR score for the BJU International ( n = 25) was 5.6 (2.9); for The Journal of Urology ( n = 20), 5.1 (2.6); for European Urology ( n = 60), 4.5 (2.2); and for Urology ( n = 20), 4.4 (2.2) ( P = 0.106). Conclusions 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.