PD79 Poor Design And Reporting Impacts The Value Of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Introduction:

Systematic reviews are useful for identifying gaps in research, setting priorities for future research, and informing clinical practice and public policy decisions. However, appropriate methods are needed to ensure that systematic reviews are of suitable quality in order to maximize their potential to achieve impact. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and transparency of systematic reviews conducted on prostate artery embolization (PAE), a topic of considerable interest in urology.

Methods:

We conducted a cross-case analysis. Existing reviews were identified through a systematic search of four biomedical databases (Cochrane Library, York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Embase, Medline) from inception up to 8 December 2016. Systematic reviews that evaluated the safety and effectiveness of PAE to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia were included. Included reviews were critically appraised using the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) tool, and were scored against the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria.

Results:

From 536 search results, nine relevant systematic reviews were identified, of which eight were published in 2016. None of the included reviews were prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database. The median AMSTAR score was four of 11 (range 0–7). The most common methodological concerns were related to comprehensive searches (33 percent), inclusion of grey literature (0 percent), and evaluation of publication bias (0 percent). Reviews adequately reported a median of 17 of 21 items (range 6–19) against the PRISMA checklist.

Conclusions:

Despite the availability of robust guidelines for conducting systematic reviews, methodological limitations in reviews of PAE are prolific, leading to considerable heterogeneity. There is also a significant duplication of effort, which can be prevented by prospectively registering systematic reviews on PROSPERO. Reducing duplication and increasing methodological quality are imperative to reducing waste in urological research.