Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
The Quality of Literature Search Reporting in Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature (1998-2021)
7
Zitationen
4
Autoren
2023
Jahr
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluate to what extent systematic reviews published in the urological literature follow best practices for the reporting of searches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews addressing questions of therapy/prevention were sought out in 5 major urological journals from January 1998 to December 2021. Two members performed study selection and data abstraction independently and in duplicate. The methodological and reporting quality of these systematic reviews was assessed using operationalized criteria based on the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-literature search extension) and PRISMA 2020 checklists. Proportions of systematic reviews that satisfied each criterion were compared based on period (1998-2012, 2013-2016, and 2017-2021) and journal of publication. RESULTS: = .647). Reporting characteristics across journals were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews published in the urological literature have considerable shortcomings regarding the reporting of their underlying search strategies. Efforts must be taken to improve search strategies in the form of better training in systematic review methods as well as the more stringent enforcement of reporting guidelines.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
2021 · 89.363 Zit.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
2009 · 83.028 Zit.
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
1977 · 77.774 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 63.389 Zit.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
2003 · 62.057 Zit.