Page 14 - CUA 2020_Technology and Training_v2

2020 CUA Abstracts

References followed a written a priori protocol to independently screen references
1. Hosier GW, Touma NJ. Attitudes of graduating Canadian urology in Rayyan and extracted data using a piloted form based on the sixteen
®
residents on the job market: Is it getting better or are we just spin- domains of AMSTAR-2. We performed pre-planned statistical hypothesis
ning our wheels? Can Urol Assoc J 2018;12:104-9. https://doi. testing by journal of publication in SPSS Version 24.0.
org/10.5489/cuaj.4765 Results: Our search identified 260 relevant references, 144 of which
2. Welk B, Kodama R, MacNeily A. The newly graduated Canadian ultimately met inclusion criteria. The largest contributors by journal of
urologist: Over-trained and underemployed? Can Urol Assoc J publication were European Urology (53; 36.8%) followed by Urology
2013;7:E10-5. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.188 (36; 25.0%), and BJU International (24; 16.6%). The most common
clinical topics were oncology (64; 44.4%) and voiding dysfunction (32;
MP-6.12 22.2%) followed by stones/endourology (14; 9.7%). Just over one-third
(52; 36.2%) of reviews had a registered protocol. Nearly all studies (139;
Assessing the quality of systematic reviews in the urological 96.5%) searched at least two databases. Less than one-third (46; 31.9%)
literature (2016–18) using AMSTAR-2 also searched trial registries and one-fifth (30; 20.8%) consulted experts
Maylynn Ding , Leah Soderberg , Jae H Jung , Philipp Dahm 2 for additional trials. Few systematic reviews (14; 10.4%) provided a list
2
1
3
2
1 Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Urology, of potentially relevant but excluded studies. Only six (4.2%) systematic
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Urology, reviews met all AMSTAR-2 critical domains as a prerequisite for high-
3
Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea quality reviews.
Introduction: This project aimed to investigate the methodological quality Conclusions: Many systematic reviews are published in the urological
of systematic reviews published in the urological literature. literature each year, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need for edu-
Methods: PubMed was systematically searched for systematic reviews cating authors, peer reviewers, and editors alike on established standards
®
related to questions of prevention and therapy published in five major for high-quality systematic reviews to ensure improvement in the future.
urology journals from January 2016 to December 2018. Two reviewers

S114 CUAJ • June 2020 • Volume 14, Issue 6(Suppl2)