Articlegold2017

Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature

22 citations0/0 files storedPeerJ

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

Purpose To assess the overall quality of published urological meta-analyses and identify predictive factors for high quality. Materials and Methods We systematically searched PubMed to identify meta-analyses published from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2015 in 10 predetermined major paper-based urology journals. The characteristics of the included meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological qualities were assessed by the PRISMA checklist (27 items) and AMSTAR tool (11 items), respectively. Descriptive statistics were used for individual items as a measure of overall compliance, and PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were calculated as the sum of adequately reported domains. Logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for high qualities. Results A total of 183 meta-analyses were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were 22.74 ± 2.04 and 7.57 ± 1.41, respectively. PRISMA item 5, protocol and registration, items 15 and 22, risk of bias across studies, items 16 and 23, additional analysis had less than 50% adherence. AMSTAR item 1, “ a priori ” design, item 5, list of studies and item 10, publication bias had less than 50% adherence. Logistic regression analyses showed that funding support and “ a priori ” design were associated with superior reporting quality, following PRISMA guideline and “ a priori ” design were associated with superior methodological quality. Conclusions Reporting and methodological qualities of recently published meta-analyses in major paper-based urology journals are generally good. Further improvement could potentially be achieved by strictly adhering to PRISMA guideline and having “ a priori ” protocol.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2000Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2011Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

Cited by

2021The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ‐ A systematic review 2017“Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews in radiation oncology: A systematic review”2019Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses of Nursing Interventions in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease: General Implications of the Findings

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.