Purpose: We evaluate to what extent systematic reviews published in the urological literature follow best practices for the reporting of searches.
Materials and methods: Systematic reviews addressing questions of therapy/prevention were sought out in 5 major urological journals from January 1998 to December 2021. Two members performed study selection and data abstraction independently and in duplicate. The methodological and reporting quality of these systematic reviews was assessed using operationalized criteria based on the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-literature search extension) and PRISMA 2020 checklists. Proportions of systematic reviews that satisfied each criterion were compared based on period (1998-2012, 2013-2016, and 2017-2021) and journal of publication.
Results: The search identified 483 systematic reviews that met inclusion criteria. Most systematic reviews searched 2 or more electronic databases (88.6%); few searched abstract proceedings (26.7%), clinical trial registries (15.1%), or dedicated databases of the "gray literature" (6.2%). Approximately 1 in 3 systematic reviews (32.3%) were explicit in not restricting searches by language. A few criteria demonstrated improved reporting over time including use of clinical trial registries (6.8% vs 14.4% vs 23.3%; P = .001), searches unrestricted by language (37.3% vs 49.3% vs 55.1%; P = .006), and flow diagram reporting (34.8% vs 82.9% vs 93.2%; P = .001) but not the search of abstract proceedings (28.6% vs 24.0% vs 27.3%; P = .647). Reporting characteristics across journals were similar.
Conclusions: Systematic reviews published in the urological literature have considerable shortcomings regarding the reporting of their underlying search strategies. Efforts must be taken to improve search strategies in the form of better training in systematic review methods as well as the more stringent enforcement of reporting guidelines.
Keywords: gray literature; information science; medical writing; research report; systematic reviews as topic.