Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews for Questions of Therapy and Prevention Published in the Urological Literature (2016–2021) Fails to Improve
Abstract
Objectives Prior studies have suggested that few systematic reviews (SRs) published in the urological literature
provide reliable evidence. We performed this study to provide a longitudinal analysis of the methodological quality of
SRs published in 5 major urology journals over a 6-year period (2016–2021).
Methods As an extension of a prior study with a written a priori protocol, we systematically searched and analyzed
all SRs related to questions of therapy or prevention published in the 5 major urology journals. Three independent
reviewers working in pairs selected eligible studies and abstracted the data in duplicate. We used the updated
Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) instrument to assess SR quality. We performed pre-planned
statistical hypothesis testing by time period and journal of publication in SPSS Version 27.0.
Results Our updated search (2019–2021) identified 563 references of which 114 ultimately met inclusion criteria,
which we added to the database of the prior 144 studies (2016–2018). Overall, among 258 SRs, only 6 (2.3%) and 9 SRs
(3.5%), achieved a “high” (no critical weakness; up to one non-critical weakness) or “moderate” (no critical weakness;
more than one non-critical weakness) confidence rating, respectively. Most SRs published had very low confidence
rating (195; 75.6%). The proportion of studies with a high or moderate rating (6.1% versus 4.9%; P = 0.481) did not
increase over time.
Conclusions Most SRs published in the urological literature continue to have serious methodological limitations
and should not be relied upon. There is a critical need for greater awareness for established methodological standards.
The Société International d'Urologie (SIU), which owns and publishes the Société International d'Urologie Journal (SIUJ), does not require authors of papers published in the journal to transfer copyright. Instead, we ask authors to grant an exclusive licence that allows us to publish the article in SIUJ (and any derivative or related products or publications) and that allows us to sub-license such rights and exploit all subsidiary rights.
Authors retain the right to use their own articles for their own non-commercial purposes without seeking explicit permission from SIU.
The SIUJ publication licence expressly defines “non-commercial” as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” Although no activity is completely disconnected from commercial activity, the following are generally considered to be non-commercial uses:
- Reproduction of a reasonable number (no more than 100) of print copies of the published paper for personal use (e.g., sharing with colleagues, including in grant applications).
- Posting a copy of the published version of the paper on the author’s own or their institution’s website. The article must be accompanied by this statement: ‘This article has been published in the SIUJ: [full citation; link]’.
- Inclusion of the paper in a course pack, with a maximum of 100 copies to be used in the author’s institution. The copies must include the following acknowledgement: ‘This article has been published in the SIUJ: [full citation; link].’
As the distinction between commercial and non-commercial is not always clear, authors are strongly advised to seek permission from SIU for any use that may be considered to have a commercial aspect.
We ask the corresponding author to read the terms of the licence and then to grant this exclusive licence on behalf of all authors by indicating agreement to the following statement:
The corresponding author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence on a worldwide basis to the SIU and its licensees to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in the SIUJ and any other SIU products and publications and to exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence agreement.
Review and Decision
Most submissions will be reviewed by a senior editor within 2 weeks. Many manuscripts will be rejected at this point for a variety of reasons, including subject matter outside the scope of the SIUJ, flawed design, discredited or outdated methodology, poor organization or presentation, failure to conform to ethical requirements, and apparent plagiarism.The remaining manuscripts will be sent for peer review. The SIUJ uses a single-blind process: reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors are not told who has reviewed their manuscript, and SIUJ ensures that potentially identifying information is removed from comments sent to them. Reviewers are asked to make their recommendations within 10 days, after which a senior/specialist editor will consider their comments and recommend provisional acceptance dependent on satisfactory revision, acceptance without revision, or rejection. Authors should receive a final decision within 4 to 6 weeks of submission.
