Introduction to a new series: Advanced topics in evidence-based urologic oncology

doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.03.015

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volume 29, Issue 4, July–August 2011, Page 446

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.03.015 Get rights and content

References (4)

P. Dahm et al.
A User's Guide to the Urologic Literature: Introducing a Series of Evidence Based Medicine Review Articles
J Urol
(2007)
G. Guyatt et al.
Users' Guide to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice
(2008)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (3)

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature from 1998 to 2012
2015, Journal of Urology
Citation Excerpt :
Implications of this study are that consumers of the urological literature cannot rely on peer reviewers and editors alone when determining the validity, impact and applicability of a SR but should possess the critical appraisal tools to make these determinations on their own. Review articles on the interpretation of SRs published in BJU International, The Journal of Urology and Urologic Oncology specifically for a urological audience are designed to provide the necessary knowledge and skills.16–18 They further underscore the value of the American Urological Association core curriculum that covers the topic of review articles and evidence synthesis.
Systematic reviews synthesize the current best evidence to address a clinical question. Given the growing emphasis on evidence-based clinical practice, systematic reviews are being increasingly sought after and published. We previously reported limitations in the methodological quality of 57 individual systematic reviews published from 1998 to 2008. We provide an update to our previous study, adding systematic reviews published from 2009 to 2012.
We systematically searched PubMed® and hand searched the table of contents of 4 major urological journals to identify systematic reviews related to questions of prevention and therapy. Two independent reviewers with prior formal evidence-based medicine training assessed the methodological quality using the validated 11-point AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) instrument. We performed predefined statistical hypothesis testing for differences by publication period (1998 to 2008 vs 2009 to 2012) and journal of publication. We performed statistical testing using SPSS®, version 23.0 with a 2-sided α of 0.05 using the Student t-test, ANOVA and the chi-square test.
A total of 113 systematic reviews published from 2009 to 2012 met study inclusion criteria. The most common topics were oncology (44 reviews or 38.9%), voiding dysfunction (26 or 23.0%) and stones/endourology (13 or 11.5%). The largest contributor was European Urology (46 reviews or 40.7%), followed by BJU International (31 or 27.4%) and The Journal of Urology® (22 or 19.5%). The mean ± SD AMSTAR score for the 2009 to 2012 period was 5.3 ± 2.3 compared to 4.8 ± 2.0 for 1998 to 2008 with a mean difference of 0.5 (95% CI 0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.133).
While the number of systematic reviews published in the urological literature has increased substantially, the methodological quality of these studies remains suboptimal. Systematic review authors and editors should make every effort to adhere to well established methodological standards to enhance the impact of their research efforts.
Evidence-Based Clinical Practice 2.0: An Updated Primer for Urologists
2020, Urology Practice
Raising the bar for systematic reviews with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)
2017, BJU International

View full text

Seminar section introductionIntroduction to a new series: Advanced topics in evidence-based urologic oncology

J Urol

Users' Guide to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice

Seminar section introduction
Introduction to a new series: Advanced topics in evidence-based urologic oncology