Guidelines for meta‐analyses and systematic reviews in urology

Abstract

In an effort to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in the clinical urology literature, a group of statisticians developed a set of guidelines to address common errors of analysis, reporting and interpretation. One key focus is the assessment and interpretation of between-studies heterogeneity. Application of the guidelines will help avoid 'cookie cutter science' and lead to more considered analysis and interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

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