'Spin' in urology non-randomised studies comparing therapeutic interventions: a temporal analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of 'spin' (i.e., reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results by positively reflecting negative findings or downplaying potential harms) strategies and level of spin in urological observational studies and whether the use of spin has changed over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify observational studies comparing therapeutic interventions in the top five urology journals and major urological subspecialty journals, published between 2000 and 2001, 2010 and 2011, and 2020 and 2021. RESULTS: A total of 235 studies were included. Spin was identified in 81% of studies, with a median of two strategies per study. The most commonly used strategies were inadequate implication for clinical practice (30%), causal language or causal claim (29%), and use of linguistic spin (29%). Moderate to high levels of spin were found in 55% of conclusions. From 2000 to 2020, the average number of strategies used has significantly decreased each decade (H = 27.459, P < 0.001), and the median level of spin in conclusions was significantly lower in studies published in the 2020s and 2010s than in the 2000s (H = 11.649, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that 81% of urological observational studies comparing therapeutic interventions contained spin. Over the past two decades, the use of spin has significantly declined, but this remains an area for improvement, with 70% of included studies published in the 2020s employing spin. Medical writing should scrupulously avoid words or phrases that are not supported by data in the manuscript.

Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to analyze how instructions for authors in journals indexed in MEDLINE address systematic review (SR) reporting and methodology. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed instructions for authors in 20% of MEDLINE-indexed journals listed in the online catalog of the National Library of Medicine on July 27, 2021. We extracted data only from the instructions published in English. We extracted data on the existence of instructions for reporting and methodology of SRs. RESULTS: Instructions from 1,237 journals mentioned SRs in 45% (n = 560) of the cases. Systematic review (SR) registration was mentioned in 104/1,237 (8%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SR protocols were found in 155/1,237 (13%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SRs were explicitly mentioned in 461/1,237 (37%), whereas the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network was referred to in 474/1,237 (38%) of instructions. Less than 2% (n = 20) of instructions mentioned risk of bias and meta-analyses; less than 1% mentioned certainty of evidence assessment, methodological expectations, updating of SRs, overviews of SRs, or scoping reviews. CONCLUSION: Journals indexed in MEDLINE rarely provide instructions for authors regarding SR reporting and methodology. Such instructions could potentially raise authors' awareness and improve how SRs are prepared and reported.

The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: Complete reporting is essential for clinical research. However, the endorsement of reporting guidelines in radiological journals is still unclear. Further, as a field extensively utilizing artificial intelligence (AI), the adoption of both general and AI reporting guidelines would be necessary for enhancing quality and transparency of radiological research. This study aims to investigate the endorsement of general reporting guidelines and those for AI applications in medical imaging in radiological journals, and explore associated journal characteristic variables. METHODS: This meta-research study screened journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging category, Science Citation Index Expanded of the 2022 Journal Citation Reports, and excluded journals not publishing original research, in non-English languages, and instructions for authors unavailable. The endorsement of fifteen general reporting guidelines and ten AI reporting guidelines was rated using a five-level tool: "active strong", "active weak", "passive moderate", "passive weak", and "none". The association between endorsement and journal characteristic variables was evaluated by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: We included 117 journals. The top-five endorsed reporting guidelines were CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, 58.1%, 68/117), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 54.7%, 64/117), STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, 51.3%, 60/117), STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy, 50.4%, 59/117), and ARRIVE (Animal Research Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, 35.9%, 42/117). The most implemented AI reporting guideline was CLAIM (Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging, 1.7%, 2/117), while other nine AI reporting guidelines were not mentioned. The Journal Impact Factor quartile and publisher were associated with endorsement of reporting guidelines in radiological journals. CONCLUSIONS: The general reporting guideline endorsement was suboptimal in radiological journals. The implementation of reporting guidelines for AI applications in medical imaging was extremely low. Their adoption should be strengthened to facilitate quality and transparency of radiological study reporting.

Consejos para escribir un artículo científico. Parte 1: la práctica de la escritura / Tips for Writing a Scientific Paper: The Practice of Writing

La escritura de artículos académicos es una competencia necesaria para la difusión del conocimiento científico y para el desarrollo profesional de quienes trabajan en diversas disciplinas. Sin embargo, a pesar de su importancia, esta habilidad compleja no suele ser enseñada en forma sistemática, lo que puede operar como una barrera para que los investigadores comuniquen los resultados de sus trabajos. En esta primera entrega, sintetizamos los principales consejos que han brindado expertos en la temática, añadiendo algunos de nuestra experiencia personal que consideramos útiles para facilitar el proceso de la escritura académica y el desarrollo de esta competencia en un contexto colaborativo. En una segunda entrega profundizaremos respecto de la problemática de la escritura de las diferentes secciones de un artículo científico y se ofrecerán consejos para optimizarla y volverla lo más eficaz posible. (AU)

Academic writing is essential for scientific knowledge dissemination and the professional development of those working in various disciplines. Yet, however important this complex skill is, it is not usually taught systematically, a fact that can act as a barrier for researchers to communicate the results of their work. In this first part, we synthesize the main tips provided by experts in the field, adding some of our personal experiences that they consider relevant to facilitate the process of academic writing and develop this skill in a collaborative context. In a second article, we will go deeper into the problem of writing the different sections of a scientific article and offer advice on ways to optimize it and make it as effective as possible. (AU)

Independent reporting in oral and maxillofacial pathology.

AIMS: To understand the current practice, extent of use and barriers related to independent reporting (IR) in oral and maxillofacial pathology (OMFP) training in the UK. METHODS: A questionnaire was created containing questions about the experiences and opinions surrounding IR in OMFP. The target participants were (1) consultants in OMFP who had been involved in training OMFP trainees in the last 5 years and (2) current OMFP trainees. The questionnaire was delivered via Google Forms and disseminated using a link in an invitation email sent to the participants. RESULTS: A total of 13 consultant responses (response rate of 81%) and 12 trainee responses (response rate of 92%) were received. Of these, three consultants and five trainees were using IR at the time of the study. Several themes emerged highlighting the perceived benefits and concerns regarding IR. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is a disparity in the way IR is used in OMFP training across the UK. There was shared concern between consultants and trainees regarding the lack of clear guidance and subsequent fear of litigation. These are issues that need to be addressed if trainees are to have a similar experience across the country and be prepared for independent practice on completion of training.

Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care-the CRISP Statement.

Primary care (PC) is a unique clinical specialty and research discipline with its own perspectives and methods. Research in this field uses varied research methods and study designs to investigate myriad topics. The diversity of PC presents challenges for reporting, and despite the proliferation of reporting guidelines, none focuses specifically on the needs of PC. The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Checklist guides reporting of PC research to include the information needed by the diverse PC community, including practitioners, patients, and communities. CRISP complements current guidelines to enhance the reporting, dissemination, and application of PC research findings and results. Prior CRISP studies documented opportunities to improve research reporting in this field. Our surveys of the international, interdisciplinary, and interprofessional PC community identified essential items to include in PC research reports. A 2-round Delphi study identified a consensus list of items considered necessary. The CRISP Checklist contains 24 items that describe the research team, patients, study participants, health conditions, clinical encounters, care teams, interventions, study measures, settings of care, and implementation of findings/results in PC. Not every item applies to every study design or topic. The CRISP guidelines inform the design and reporting of (1) studies done by PC researchers, (2) studies done by other investigators in PC populations and settings, and (3) studies intended for application in PC practice. Improved reporting of the context of the clinical services and the process of research is critical to interpreting study findings/results and applying them to diverse populations and varied settings in PC.Annals "Online First" article.

Uso y abuso de los criterios de inclusión y exclusión en el proyecto de investigación

Uno de los aspectos metodológicos esenciales de una investigación es la delimitación de los sujetos a estudiar. Este artìculo aborda la tendencia actual a una excesiva e injustificada declaración de los criterios de inclusión y de exclusión en todo tipo de investigación. Se defiende la idea de que una adecuada utilización de las categorías universo y muestra hace innecesaria la declaración de criterios de inclusión y de exclusión en el diseño metodológico de la mayoría de los proyectos de trabajo de terminación de la especialidad que presentan nuestros residentes.

One of the essential methodological aspects of an investigation is the delimitation of the subjects to be studied. This article addresses the current trend towards an excessive and unjustified statement of inclusion and exclusion criteria in all types of research. The idea is defended that an adequate use of the universe and sample categories makes it unnecessary to declare inclusion and exclusion criteria in the methodological design of most of the specialty completion work projects presented by our residents.

Guía para la confección del informe de tesis de especialistas de primer grado / Guide for preparing the thesis report of first-degree specialists i: en

Contar con una guía que establezca un formato único para la elaboración del informe correspondiente a las tesis de las especialidades de las ciencias médicas ha sido, hasta el momento, una necesidad de los tribunales y residentes. Por ello, en la Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de Santiago de Cuba se propuso confeccionar una guía a tal efecto, en la cual se mantienen los aspectos formales y científicos establecidos previamente, pero se añaden elementos en el formato en cuanto a la escritura y la extensión general y por secciones. En este artículo se expone dicha guía, que se constituye en un instrumento de utilidad tanto para los especialistas de primer grado, al facilitar y perfeccionar la confección del trabajo de tesis, como para los tribunales estatales que tienen a su cargo la evaluación de estos informes.

Having a guide that establishes a single format for preparing the report corresponding to theses in medical science specialties has been, until now, a need for courts and residents. For this reason, at the University of Medical Sciences from Santiago de Cuba it was proposed to prepare a guide for this purpose, in which the formal and scientific aspects previously established are maintained, but elements are added in the format in terms of writing and general extension and by parts. This article presents this guide, which constitutes a useful instrument both for first-degree specialists, by facilitating and perfecting the preparation of the thesis work, and for the state courts that are in charge of evaluating these reports.

Clinical research progress in Traditional Chinese Medicine in treating wound healing after anal fistula surgery.

In the study of the mechanism of wound healing after anal fistula surgery, how to scientifically and efficiently promote wound healing is of great significance. At present, modern medical treatment of wounds after anal fistula surgery mostly focuses on physical therapy intervention, new wound dressing and packing, and external application of growth factors. However, these therapies have many problems, and there is still no consensus on their clinical use. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has several methods to promote wound healing, such as oral administration, rubbing, and fumigation, which have a long history and obvious efficacy, but research in this area is relatively scattered and lacks classification and summarizing. Therefore, this paper analyzes and summarizes the existing research on TCM for promotion of wound healing after anal fistula surgery, carries out targeted analyses according to different clinical syndromes and treatment methods, and analyzes the defects in current research and anticipates future research trends in order to provide theoretical support for the advantages of TCM in promoting wound healing after anal fistula surgery.

Current concerns on journal article with preprint: Anesthesia and Pain Medicine perspectives.

Preprints are preliminary research reports that have not yet been peer-reviewed. They have been widely adopted to promote the timely dissemination of research across many scientific fields. In August 1991, Paul Ginsparg launched an electronic bulletin board intended to serve a few hundred colleagues working in a subfield of theoretical high-energy physics, thus launching arXiv, the first and largest preprint platform. Additional preprint servers have since been implemented in different academic fields, such as BioRxiv (2013, Biology; www.biorxiv.org) and medRxiv (2019, Health Science; www.medrxiv.org). While preprint availability has made valuable research resources accessible to the general public, thus bridging the gap between academic and non-academic audiences, it has also facilitated the spread of unsupported conclusions through various media channels. Issues surrounding the preprint policies of a journal must be addressed, ultimately, by editors and include the acceptance of preprint manuscripts, allowing the citation of preprints, maintaining a double-blind peer review process, changes to the preprint's content and authors' list, scoop priorities, commenting on preprints, and preventing the influence of social media. Editors must be able to deal with these issues adequately, to maintain the scientific integrity of their journal. In this review, the history, current status, and strengths and weaknesses of preprints as well as ongoing concerns regarding journal articles with preprints are discussed. An optimal approach to preprints is suggested for editorial board members, authors, and researchers.

Osteonecrosis of the jaws in patients under osteoporosis treatment: a nine-year experience report.

Objective: This study aimed to report the experience of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) in osteoporotic patients for nine years, and their associated initiating factors. Materials and methods: The numbers of invasive oral procedures (IOP) (tooth extraction, dental implant placement, and periodontal procedures) and removable prostheses performed from January 2012 to January 2021 were obtained from the digital records of a large public dental center. There were an estimated 6,742 procedures performed in patients under osteoporosis treatment. Results: Two cases (0.03%) of MRONJ were registered in nine years amongst patients with osteoporosis who had dental treatment at the center. From the 1,568 tooth extractions, one patient (0.06%) developed MRONJ. There was also one case from the 2,139 removable prostheses delivered (0.05%). Conclusion: The prevalence of MRONJ associated with osteoporosis treatment was very low. The protocols adopted seem to be adequate for the prevention of this complication. The findings of this study reinforce the rare frequency of MRONJ associated with dental procedures in patients submitted to the pharmacological management of osteoporosis. An integral analysis of systemic risk factors and oral preventive strategies may be considered regularly in the dental treatment of these patients.

Current concerns on journal article with preprint: Korean Journal of Internal Medicine perspectives.

Preprints are preliminary research reports that have not yet been peer-reviewed. They have been widely adopted to promote the timely dissemination of research across many scientific fields. In August 1991, Paul Ginsparg launched an electronic bulletin board intended to serve a few hundred colleagues working in a subfield of theoretical high-energy physics, thus launching arXiv, the first and largest preprint platform. Additional preprint servers have since been implemented in different academic fields, such as BioRxiv (2013, Biology; www.biorxiv.org) and medRxiv (2019, Health Science; www.medrxiv.org). While preprint availability has made valuable research resources accessible to the general public, thus bridging the gap between academic and non-academic audiences, it has also facilitated the spread of unsupported conclusions through various media channels. Issues surrounding the preprint policies of a journal must be addressed, ultimately, by editors and include the acceptance of preprint manuscripts, allowing the citation of preprints, maintaining a double-blind peer review process, changes to the preprint's content and authors' list, scoop priorities, commenting on preprints, and preventing the influence of social media. Editors must be able to deal with these issues adequately, to maintain the scientific integrity of their journal. In this review, the history, current status, and strengths and weaknesses of preprints as well as ongoing concerns regarding journal articles with preprints are discussed. An optimal approach to preprints is suggested for editorial board members, authors, and researchers.

Epilepsy and the "dark" literature of the Greek novelist Demosthenes Voutyras: an outstanding epileptic personality / Epilepsia e a literatura "sombria" do romancista grego Demosthenes Voutyras: uma personalidade epilética notável

Abstract Background The role of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) in determining personality traits and neurobehavioral symptoms, collectively known as the interictal behavioral syndrome (also known as Geschwind syndrome or "Gastaut-Geschwind syndrome"), as well as the syndrome's association with the particular artistic expression of many epileptic litterateurs are well known in neurology and psychiatry. A deepening of emotionality along with a serious, highly ethical, and spiritual behavior have been described as positive personality changes among patients with chronic mesial-TLE. Objectives Our narrative-based clinical hypothesis aims at contributing to the ongoing debate on the association between TLE and artistic expression, as well as the latter's supposed implication for epileptology in general and the neuropsychology of epilepsy in particular. Methods Through an analysis of the biography, language, and literary work of Greek novelist Demosthenes Voutyras, we hypothesize that his mystical and dark writing style could be attributed to medial temporal interictal dynamics. Conclusions We suggest that the psycholiterary profile of Voutyras is consistent with the idiosyncratic characteristics of the temporal lobe personality, while a non-dominant temporal lobe contribution has been proposed.

Resumo Antecedentes O papel da epilepsia do lobo temporal (ELT) na determinação de traços de personalidade e sintomas neurocomportamentais, coletivamente conhecidos como síndrome comportamental interictal (também conhecida como síndrome de Geschwind ou "síndrome de Gastaut-Geschwind"), bem como a associação da síndrome com o expressão de muitos literatos epilépticos são bem conhecidos em neurologia e psiquiatria. Um aprofundamento da emotividade juntamente com um comportamento sério, altamente ético e espiritual tem sido descrito como mudanças positivas de personalidade em pacientes com ELT mesial crônica. Objetivos A nossa hipótese clínica narrativa visa contribuir para o debate em curso sobre a associação entre ELT e a expressão artística, bem como a suposta implicação desta última para a epilepsia em geral e a neuropsicologia da epilepsia em particular. Métodos Através de uma análise da biografia, linguagem e obra literária do romancista grego Demóstenes Voutyras, levantamos a hipótese de que seu estilo de escrita místico e sombrio poderia ser atribuído à dinâmica interictal temporal medial. Conclusões Sugerimos que o perfil psicoliterário de Voutyras é consistente com as características idiossincráticas da personalidade do lobo temporal, enquanto uma contribuição do lobo temporal não dominante foi proposta.

Assessing the quality of reporting on quality improvement initiatives in plastic surgery: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent increase in the number and complexity of quality improvement studies in plastic surgery. To assist with the development of thorough quality improvement reporting practices, with the goal of improving the transferability of these initiatives, we conducted a systematic review of studies describing the implementation of quality improvement initiatives in plastic surgery. We used the SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guideline to appraise the quality of reporting of these initiatives. METHODS: English-language articles published in Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane databases were searched. Quantitative studies evaluating the implementation of quality improvement initiatives in plastic surgery were included. The primary endpoint of interest in this review was the distribution of studies per SQUIRE 2.0 criteria scores in proportions. Abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction were completed independently and in duplicate by the review team. RESULTS: We screened 7046 studies, of which 103 full texts were assessed, and 50 met inclusion criteria. In our assessment, only 7 studies (14%) met all 18 SQUIRE 2.0 criteria. SQUIRE 2.0 criteria that were met most frequently were abstract, problem description, rationale, and specific aims. The lowest SQUIRE 2.0 scores appeared in funding, conclusion, and interpretation criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in QI reporting in plastic surgery, especially in the realm of funding, costs, strategic trade-offs, project sustainability, and potential for spread to other contexts, will further advance the transferability of QI initiatives, which could lead to significant strides in improving patient care.

Authors arbitrarily used methodological approaches to analyze the quality of reporting in research reports: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: Many authors used reporting checklists as an assessment tool to analyze the reporting quality of diverse types of evidence. We aimed to analyze methodological approaches used by researchers assessing reporting quality of evidence in randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and observational studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed articles reporting quality assessment of evidence with Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), or the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklists published up to 18 July 2021. We analyzed methods used for assessing reporting quality. RESULTS: Among 356 analyzed articles, 293 (88%) investigated a specific thematic field. The CONSORT checklist (N = 225; 67%) was most often used, in its original, modified, partial form, or its extension. Numerical scores were given for adherence to checklist items in 252 articles (75%), of which 36 articles (11%) used various reporting quality thresholds. In 158 (47%) articles, predictors of adherence to reporting checklist were analyzed. The most studied factor associated with adherence to reporting checklist was the year of article publication (N = 82; 52%). CONCLUSION: The methodology used for assessing reporting quality of evidence varied considerably. The research community needs a consensus on a consistent methodology for assessing the quality of reporting.

Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a meta-research study. METHODS: We included Cochrane systematic reviews or Cochrane systematic reviews protocols that planned to include randomized clinical trials. We assessed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and screened for issues published after the launch of risk of bias 2.0 tool (2019-2022). Two independent investigators performed the study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: We analyzed 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane systematic reviews protocols. Overall, 4.8% of the Cochrane systematic reviews and 28.5% of the Cochrane systematic reviews protocols used or planned to use risk of bias 2.0 tool. Although low, adherence is increasing over time. In 2019, 0% of Cochrane systematic reviews used risk of bias 2.0 tool, compared to 24.1% in 2022. In Cochrane systematic reviews protocols, adherence increased from 6.9% in 2019 to 41.5% in 2022. A total of 274 (62.1%) Cochrane systematic reviews had their protocols published before 2018; only one used risk of bias 2.0 tool and reported the change of versions in the "Differences between protocol and revision" section. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool has low adherence among Cochrane protocols and systematic reviews. Further efforts are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this new tool.

Proyecto de investigación y tesis. Guía para su elaboración

La investigación final que deben realizar los residentes para culminar la especialización es el instrumento creado en el proceso formativo de posgrado, para que aprenda y aplique los aspectos básicos de la metodología de la investigación médica. Este trabajo tiene como objetivo brindar una guía de consulta a estudiantes y docentes, sobre la estructura y presentación de los proyectos de investigación e informe final de los trabajos de terminación de la especialidad. Para ello se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica para la recopilación y clasificación de la bibliografía actualizada. Se brindan consideraciones de cómo elaborar el proyecto de investigación y el informe final y se especifica la información que deben tener ambos documentos. Se exponen elementos fundamentales sobre la estructura y presentación de los proyectos de investigación e informe final que podrán ser utilizados como guía de consulta para estudiantes y docentes.

The final research that residents must carry out to complete the specialization is the instrument created in the postgraduate training process, so that they learn and apply the basic aspects of medical research methodology. This work aims to provide a reference guide for students and teachers, on the structure and presentation of research projects and final report of completion of the specialty. For this, a bibliographic search was carried out for the compilation and classification of the updated bibliography. Considerations of how to prepare the research project and the final report are provided, and the information that both documents must have is specified. Fundamental elements on the structure and presentation of research projects and final report that can be used as a reference guide for students and teachers are exposed.

The Quality of Literature Search Reporting in Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature (1998-2021).

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.