Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35118979›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of urology2021

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

Hanieh Salehi-Pourmehr, Amirreza Naseri, Ali Mostafaei, Leila Vahedi, Sana Sajjadi, Sona Tayebi, Hadi Mostafaei, Sakineh Hajebrahimi

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hanieh Salehi-PourmehrResearch Center for Evidence Based-Medicine, Iranian EBM Center: A Joanna Briggs Institute Center of Excellence, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Amirreza NaseriResearch Center for Evidence Based-Medicine, Iranian EBM Center: A Joanna Briggs Institute Center of Excellence, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran; Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Ali MostafaeiResearch Center for Evidence Based-Medicine, Iranian EBM Center: A Joanna Briggs Institute Center of Excellence, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran;Department of Ophthalmology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Leila VahediLiver and Gastrointestinal Diseases Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Sana SajjadiIslamic Azad University Marand Branch, Marand, Iran.
Sona TayebiDepartment of Urology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Hadi MostafaeiDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sakineh HajebrahimiResearch Center for Evidence Based-Medicine, Iranian EBM Center: A Joanna Briggs Institute Center of Excellence, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran;Department of Urology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Tabriz University of Medical Sciences · IRComprehensive Cancer Center Vienna · ATIslamic Azad University of Marand · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCochrane 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

methodsThis 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.

resultsA 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).

conclusionAlthough 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.

Identifiers

PMID35118979
PMCPMC9612768
OpenAlexW4200440950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.