30th ESPU Congress - Lyon, France - 2019

SRC: Research Committee Session: BIASED TO BIAS

Moderators: Goedele Beckers (Netherlands), Darius Bägli (Canada), Magdalena Fossum (Sweden)

ESPU Meeting on Wednesday 24, April 2019, 12:30 - 13:15


12:30 - 12:36
SRC-1 (PP)

ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL AND REPORTING QUALITY OF CLINICAL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES IN PAEDIATRIC UROLOGY: CAN WE BUILD PRACTICES ON CONTEMPORARY HIGHEST LEVELS OF EVIDENCE?

Fardod O ' KELLY 1, Keara DE COTIIS 1, Armando LORENZO 1, Luis BRAGA 2 and Martin KOYLE 1
1) The Hospital for Sick Children (Sick Kids), Paediatric Urology, Toronto, CANADA - 2) McMaster Childrens' Hospital, Paediatric Urology, Hamilton, CANADA

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 in childhood surgery with issues of consent, and condition prevalence. It has previously been demonstrated that the data published by these reviews contain deficiencies and high variability in the literatureOur aims 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 paediatric urology residents and fellows

METHODS

A systematic search of the English literature was performed to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on clinical paediatric urology (1/1/2000-7/9/2018) to include common paediatric urological conditions managed by paediatric urology residents/fellows. To these reviews, AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA scores were applied. Univariate linear regression and descriptive statistical methods were performed

RESULTS

From an initial literature review of 389 articles, 101 were included in the analysis. Inter-reviewer agreement was high (k= 0.92). 70% systematic reviews/meta-analyses were published since 2013. The overall impact factor was 3.38 (0.83 – 17.58), with adherence to AMSTAR-2 criteria 48.46% and PRISMA criteria 73.32%. From a methodological perspective, 62.5% reviews were of poor quality, with 37.5% of fair quality, 50% reviews were found to have good quality reporting. There has been an increase in methodological quality of from 2000-2018 with a shift from poor quality to fair quality in 2012 (p= 0.0024) 

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the continued increase of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric urology from which many guidelines are based, a significant number contain poor methodology, and to a lesser extent poor reporting quality. Journals should consider having specific “a priori” criteria based on checklists prior to publication of manuscripts in order to ensure the highest possible reporting quality