GRADE Reporting in Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature (2009-2021)

Purpose:We evaluate the reporting of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to rating the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews published in the urological literature.Materials and Methods:Based on a predefined protocol, we identified all systematic reviews published in 5 major urological journals from 1998 to 2021 that reported the use of GRADE. Two authors performed study selection and data abstraction independently to assess reporting in accordance with established criteria for applying GRADE.Results:We included 68 of 522 (13.0%) systematic reviews that reported the use of GRADE; the first was published in 2009. Approximately half were published between 2009-2018 (n=36) and the other half between 2019-2021 (n=32). Oncology (24; 35.3%) was the most common clinical topic, and the authors were mostly based in Europe (34; 50%). In their abstract, less than half of all systematic reviews (32; 47.1%) provided any certainty of evidence rating. Only 41 (60.3%) included a tabular result summary in the format of a summary of findings table (24; 35.3%) or evidence profile (17; 25.0%). Few (35.3%) addressed the GRADE certainty of evidence rating in the discussion section. Reporting did not improve over time when comparing the 2 time periods.Conclusions:Whereas GRADE is increasingly being applied for rating the certainty of evidence, systematic reviews published in the urological literature frequently have not followed established criteria for applying or using GRADE. There is a need for better training of authors and editors, as well as for a GRADE reporting checklist for systematic review authors.

Automated summary

This study evaluates the reporting of the GRADE approach in systematic reviews published in the urological literature. The results indicate that only 13.0% of the 522 systematic reviews included in the study met the criteria for reporting the use of GRADE. There is a need for improved training and a reporting checklist to enhance the quality of reporting on GRADE in urological literature.