LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 5 of total 5

Search options

  1. Article: Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature.

    Xia, Leilei / Xu, Jing / Guzzo, Thomas J

    PeerJ

    2017  Volume 5, Page(s) e3129

    Abstract: Purpose: To assess the overall quality of published urological meta-analyses and identify ... methodological qualities of recently published meta-analyses in major paper-based urology journals are generally ... urology journals. The characteristics of the included meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting ...

    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, "
    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 "
    Language English
    Publishing date 2017-04-19
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 2703241-3
    ISSN 2167-8359
    ISSN 2167-8359
    DOI 10.7717/peerj.3129
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

    Order via subito

    This service is chargeable due to the Delivery terms set by subito. Orders including an article and supplementary material will be classified as separate orders. In these cases, fees will be demanded for each order.

  2. Article ; Online: Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature

    Leilei Xia / Jing Xu / Thomas J. Guzzo

    PeerJ, Vol 5, p e

    2017  Volume 3129

    Abstract: Purpose To assess the overall quality of published urological meta-analyses and identify predictive ... methodological qualities of recently published meta-analyses in major paper-based urology journals are generally ... and “a priori” design were associated with superior methodological quality. Conclusions Reporting and ...

    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.
    Keywords Urology ; Evidence-based medicine ; Review ; Meta-analysis ; Medicine ; R ; Biology (General) ; QH301-705.5
    Subject code 310
    Language English
    Publishing date 2017-04-01T00:00:00Z
    Publisher PeerJ Inc.
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    Full text online

    More links

    Kategorien

    Inter-library loan at ZB MED

    Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.

  3. Article ; Online: The Quality of Literature Search Reporting in Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature (1998-2021).

    Norling, Brett / Edgerton, Zachary / Bakker, Caitlin / Dahm, Philipp

    The Journal of urology

    2023  Volume 209, Issue 5, Page(s) 837–843

    Abstract: ... based on the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-literature ... The methodological and reporting quality of these systematic reviews was assessed using operationalized criteria ... Purpose: We evaluate to what extent systematic reviews published in the urological literature ...

    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: The search identified 483 systematic reviews that met inclusion criteria. Most systematic reviews searched 2 or more electronic databases (88.6%); few searched abstract proceedings (26.7%), clinical trial registries (15.1%), or dedicated databases of the "gray literature" (6.2%). Approximately 1 in 3 systematic reviews (32.3%) were explicit in not restricting searches by language. A few criteria demonstrated improved reporting over time including use of clinical trial registries (6.8% vs 14.4% vs 23.3%;
    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.
    MeSH term(s) Humans ; Checklist ; Databases, Factual
    Language English
    Publishing date 2023-01-20
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article ; Review
    ZDB-ID 3176-8
    ISSN 1527-3792 ; 0022-5347
    ISSN (online) 1527-3792
    ISSN 0022-5347
    DOI 10.1097/JU.0000000000003190
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

    In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

    Ui VI Zs.91: Show issues Location:
    Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand)
    bis Jg. 2021: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular
    ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG)
    Zs.MO 331: Show issues

    Order via subito

    This service is chargeable due to the Delivery terms set by subito. Orders including an article and supplementary material will be classified as separate orders. In these cases, fees will be demanded for each order.

  4. Article ; Online: Quality of reporting for randomized controlled trials in the hypospadias literature: Where do we stand?

    Braga, Luis H / McGrath, Melissa / Easterbrook, Bethany / Jegatheeswaran, Kizanee / Mauro, Linnea / Lorenzo, Armando J

    Journal of pediatric urology

    2017  Volume 13, Issue 5, Page(s) 482.e1–482.e9

    Abstract: ... literature is suboptimal and efforts must be made to improve quality. ... was calculated to assess the quality of reporting. In addition, a methodological index score out of 4 ... concealment, blinding, and sample size justification would have higher overall quality of reporting scores ...

    Abstract Introduction: To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the hypospadias literature using the 2010 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. It was hypothesized that hypospadias RCTs that contained clear descriptions of key methodological items, allocation concealment, blinding, and sample size justification would have higher overall quality of reporting scores (OQS).
    Materials and methods: A comprehensive search was conducted through MEDLINE to identify RCTs in hypospadias surgical techniques and postoperative management during the period 1990-2014. Two reviewers independently selected articles, which were evaluated using the CONSORT checklist. An overall quality score (%) was calculated to assess the quality of reporting. In addition, a methodological index score out of 4 was calculated based on the following items: use of intention to treat/sample size justification, allocation concealment, specification of randomization type, and blinding of outcome assessors.
    Results: Of the 76 initial results, 39 (51%) were excluded due to their predominant focus on anesthesia. After full-text screening, 10 (13%) citations were further excluded because they were case control studies or did not focus on hypospadias techniques, resulting in 27 (36%) studies included for analysis. The mean overall quality score was 37 ± 12% and a median of 36% (range: 14-61%). Fifteen (56%) studies were identified as low quality (score <40%) and 12 (44%) as moderate quality (40-70%). No studies were classified as high quality (>70%). Hypospadias RCTs published between 2007 and 2014 versus those reported before 2007 (44 ± 9% vs 33 ± 11%, P = 0.01), RCTs with a sample size >100 patients versus those <100 (47 ± 8% vs 36 ± 11%, P = 0.01), RCTs that disclosed having received funding versus those that did not (56 ± 4% vs 38 ± 10%, P < 0.01) and RCTs that had proof of biostatistician/epidemiologist support versus those that did not (58 ± 5% vs 36 ± 11%, P = 0.01) had a higher mean OQS. The number of articles that met specific 2010 CONSORT criteria is illustrated in Summary Fig.
    Discussion: It was found that the contemporary hypospadias literature continues to suffer from suboptimal reporting standards. There seems to be an improvement in the OQS for studies published after 2007 and those with larger sample sizes, usually >100 patients. Nevertheless, none of the studies obtained high quality of reporting (OQS >70%) as per the CONSORT statement checklist. The inadequacies in reporting were related to sample size justifications, randomization method, allocation concealment strategy, blinding, description of subjects lost to follow-up and Intention To Treat (ITT) analysis. These findings were consistent with the poor quality of reporting observed in other surgical fields.
    Conclusions: The current overall quality score in hypospadias literature is suboptimal and efforts must be made to improve quality.
    MeSH term(s) Data Accuracy ; Humans ; Hypospadias/surgery ; Male ; Postoperative Care ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
    Language English
    Publishing date 2017-04-24
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 2237683-5
    ISSN 1873-4898 ; 1477-5131
    ISSN (online) 1873-4898
    ISSN 1477-5131
    DOI 10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.03.031
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    Full text online

    More links

    Kategorien

    In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

    Zs.A 6387: Show issues Location:
    Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand)
    bis Jg. 2021: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular
    ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG)

    Order via subito

    This service is chargeable due to the Delivery terms set by subito. Orders including an article and supplementary material will be classified as separate orders. In these cases, fees will be demanded for each order.

  5. Article ; Online: Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of clinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric urology: can practices on contemporary highest levels of evidence be built?

    O'Kelly, F / DeCotiis, K / Aditya, I / Braga, L H / Koyle, M A

    Journal of pediatric urology

    2019  Volume 16, Issue 2, Page(s) 207–217

    Abstract: ... the methodological and reporting quality of these reviews and to identify how these reviews might guide clinical ... the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2 and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and ... Conclusions: Despite the continued increase of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric urology ...

    Abstract Introduction: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a comprehensive summary of research studies and are used to assess clinical evidence, form policy and construct guidelines. This is pertinent to childhood surgery with issues of consent and condition prevalence. The aims of this study were to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of these reviews and to identify how these reviews might guide clinical practice amongst those conditions most commonly encountered and managed by practicing paediatric urologists.
    Methods: A systematic search of the English literature was performed to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on clinical paediatric urology (1/1/1992-1/12/2018) to include common paediatric urological conditions managed by paediatric urology residents/fellows. To these reviews, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2 and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) scores were applied. Univariate linear regression and descriptive statistical methods were performed.
    Results: From an initial literature review of 1723 articles, 227 were included in the analysis. Inter-reviewer agreement was high amongst 3 independent reviewers (κ = 0.92). Eighty-four percent of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published since 2009 following publication of the PRISMA guidelines. The overall impact factor was 3.38 (0.83-17.58), with adherence to AMSTAR-2 criteria 48.46% and PRISMA criteria 70.1%. From a methodological perspective, 15% of reviews were of moderate quality, 65% were of low quality and 20% reviews were of critically low quality, with none found to have good quality reporting.
    Conclusions: Despite the continued increase of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric urology from which many guidelines are based, a significant number of reviews contain poor methodology and, to a lesser extent, poor reporting quality. Journals should consider having specific 'a priori' criteria based on checklists before publication of manuscripts to ensure the highest possible reporting quality.
    MeSH term(s) Checklist ; Child ; Humans ; Linear Models ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Research Report ; Systematic Reviews as Topic ; Urologists ; Urology
    Language English
    Publishing date 2019-12-07
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 2237683-5
    ISSN 1873-4898 ; 1477-5131
    ISSN (online) 1873-4898
    ISSN 1477-5131
    DOI 10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.12.002
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    Full text online

    More links

    Kategorien

    In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

    Zs.A 6387: Show issues Location:
    Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand)
    bis Jg. 2021: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular
    ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG)

    Order via subito

    This service is chargeable due to the Delivery terms set by subito. Orders including an article and supplementary material will be classified as separate orders. In these cases, fees will be demanded for each order.

To top