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

IF 1 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY

Turkish journal of urology Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.5152/tud.2021.21038

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

{"title":"Misconduct in research integrity: Assessment the quality of systematic reviews in Cochrane urological cancer review group.","authors":"Hanieh Salehi-Pourmehr, Amirreza Naseri, Ali Mostafaei, Leila Vahedi, Sana Sajjadi, Sona Tayebi, Hadi Mostafaei, Sakineh Hajebrahimi","doi":"10.5152/tud.2021.21038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":23366,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9612768/pdf/tju-47-5-392.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2021.21038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

研究诚信中的不当行为：科克伦泌尿系统癌症综述组的系统综述质量评估。

目的：Cochrane 图书馆提供了一个强大而权威的数据库来帮助医疗决策。我们旨在评估科克伦泌尿学癌症组所记录的临床试验和系统综述的质量：这项分析性横断面研究针对的是科克伦泌尿学组已发表的44篇系统综述，这些综述的发表时间截止到2020年5月。在本研究中，我们选择了泌尿科癌症综述。我们使用 Cochrane 评估清单对这些系统综述中未充分研究的随机对照试验（RCT）或准 RCT 中的各类偏倚进行了评估。我们还对纳入研究中的偏倚类型进行了分类和分层。此外，我们还使用乔安娜-布里格斯研究所（JBI）的评估清单对系统综述的质量进行了评估：结果：共评估了 44 篇系统综述及其未充分研究的 340 项研究性试验。根据 JBI 评估清单的结果，93.2% 的系统综述具有较高的质量。就这些综述中未充分研究的研究性试验的质量而言，未充分研究的研究性试验或准研究性试验普遍存在的偏倚风险是不明确的选择偏倚（分配隐藏和随机序列生成）。偏倚风险最高的是对参与者和工作人员的盲法（表现偏倚）：尽管大多数科克伦泌尿系统癌症综述的质量较高，但在未充分研究的研究性试验中，表现偏倚的风险最高。关于这一点，再考虑到发现偏倚、自然减员和报告偏倚的风险越来越不明确，这些综述显然存在结构性缺陷；因此，建议遵守诚信原则，防止研究不当行为。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Turkish journal of urology Medicine-Urology

CiteScore

2.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The aim of the Turkish Journal of Urology is to contribute to the literature by publishing scientifically high-quality research articles as well as reviews, editorials, letters to the editor and case reports. The journal’s target audience includes, urology specialists, medical specialty fellows and other specialists and practitioners who are interested in the field of urology.