INDEXED IN WEB OF SCIENCE AND SCOPUS INDEXED IN PUBMED CENTRAL
Urology Research & Practice
  1. Home
  2. Misconduct in research integri...
UROONCOLOGY - Original Article

Misconduct in research integrity: Assessment the quality of systematic reviews in Cochrane urological cancer review group

Hanieh Salehi-Pourmehr 1 , Amirreza Naseri 1 2 , Ali Mostafaei 1 3 , Leila Vahedi 4 , Sana Sajjadi 5 , Sona Tayebi 6 , Hadi Mostafaei 7 , Sakineh Hajebrahimi 1 6
1.

Research Center for Evidence Based-Medicine, Iranian EBM Center: A Joanna Briggs Institute Center of Excellence, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

2.

Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

3.

Department of Ophthalmology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

4.

Liver and Gastrointestinal Diseases Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

5.

Islamic Azad University Marand Branch, Marand, Iran

6.

Department of Urology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

7.

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Urol Res Pract 2021; 47: 392-419
DOI: 10.5152/tud.2021.21038
Keywords : Cochrane; randomized controlled trial; risk of bias; sstematic review.
Read: 926 Downloads: 371 Published: 01 September 2021
Volume 47, Issue 5, September 2021
Previous Article Next Article

Objective: Cochrane Library provides a powerful and authoritative database to aid medical decision making. We aimed to evaluate the quality of clinical trials and systematic reviews recorded in the Cochrane urology cancers group.

Material and methods: This analytic cross-sectional study was conducted on 44 published systematic reviews of the Cochrane urology group which were published until May 2020. In the current study, we selected the urological cancer reviews. All types of biases in the understudied randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of these systematic reviews were evaluated using the Cochrane appraisal checklist. We also separated and stratified the types of biases in the included studies. In addition, the quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal checklist.

Results: A total of 44 systematic reviews and their understudied 340 RCTs were evaluated. On the basis of the JBI appraisal checklist results, 93.2% of systematic reviews had high quality. In terms of the quality of understudied RCTs in these reviews, the common prevalent risk of bias of the understudied RCTs or quasi- RCTs was unclear selection bias (allocation concealment and random sequence generation). The highest risk of bias was seen in the blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias).

Conclusion: Although most Cochrane urological cancer reviews had high quality, performance bias was the highest one in their understudied RCTs. Regarding it and considering the increasing unclear risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases, it is obvious that they have structural deficiencies; therefore, it is recommended to observe integrity principles for preventing research misconduct.

Cite this article as: Salehi-Pourmehr H, Naseri A, Mostafaei A, et al. Misconduct in research integrity: Assessment the quality of systematic reviews in Cochrane urological cancer review group. Turk J Urol. 2021; 47(5): 392-419.

Files
Full Text PDF
EISSN 2980-1478