Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2011 Jul;186(1):266-71.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.044. Epub 2011 May 20.

Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology

Luis H Braga  1 , Julia Pemberton, Jorge Demaria, Armando J Lorenzo
Affiliations
Review

Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology

Luis H Braga et al. J Urol. 2011 Jul.

Abstract

Purpose: The usefulness of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in influencing clinical practice depends on their quality. We sought to analyze the quality of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology.

Materials and methods: We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase for all systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the top 5 pediatric urology journals between January 2000 and November 2009. Two reviewers independently selected articles for full text review. Scientific methodological quality was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 11-item tool.

Results: Of 267 initial results 220 articles were excluded because they were surveys, case reports or narrative reviews. Full text evaluation of the remaining 47 articles further excluded 32 series of exclusively adult patients, leaving 15 for final analysis. Seven articles (47%) were published in 2009 (p <0.01). Only 1 review (7%) described a full search strategy and 3 (20%) allowed inclusion of non-English studies. In 8 reviews (53%) selection of studies was performed by 2 reviewers. Five systematic reviews (33%) described some form of quality assessment. Only 5 reviews (33%) described assessment of publication bias, while 8 (53%) checked for heterogeneity among studies. According to AMSTAR criteria, 7 systematic reviews (47%) were considered of less than fair methodological quality, 5 (33%) fair to good quality and 3 (20%) good quality.

Conclusions: Despite a recent increase in the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in pediatric urology journals, almost half of these reviews lack good scientific quality, raising concerns about their role in influencing clinical practice. Efforts should be made to improve the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the pediatric urology literature.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Research in pediatric urology: past, present and future.
    Yiee JH. Yiee JH. J Urol. 2011 Jul;186(1):15-6. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.002. Epub 2011 May 14. J Urol. 2011. PMID: 21571329 No abstract available.
  • Editorial comment.
    Greenfield SP. Greenfield SP. J Urol. 2011 Jul;186(1):271-2. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.138. Epub 2011 May 20. J Urol. 2011. PMID: 21600597 No abstract available.