Quality of Randomized Controlled Trial in Cochrane Urinary Incontinence Group and mapping the state-of-the-art with bibliometric analysis of top highly cited articles

Abstract

Misconduct of clinical results can affect health care at all levels, from national public health policies to the treatment of a patient. Therefore, we need to be sure of the quality of these articles. In the pyramid of evidence meta-analysis and systematic review studies, have the highest level of evidence. due to the abundance of scientific evidence in the field of urinary incontinence, access to the required data for researchers has been difficult. Therefore, in order to fully respond to research information needs, information retrieval technology has been found. These technologies help users find the most relevant and diverse scientific resources for their questions. Materials and methods: This research, which is a descriptive-analytical type, was conducted through scientometric techniques and bibliometric analysis and assessmet of Cochrane database reviews. The research community is made up of all scientific productions published in the Cochrane database related to urinary incontinence. To retrieve the records of this research, the search has been taken without time limit. After extraction of the information related to each systematic review, data and reports related to the quality of the clinical trials of studies have been evaluated including the types of biases that can be presented in the studies. For clustering, illustrating and checking the frequency of words, drawing co-authorship networks, and citation analysis, the complete report of articles such as abstract, keywords, sources, number of pages, authors and journal information, were saved in Excel files and txt files and analyzed by VOS viewer software version 0.5.6.1. Results: the assessment of 37 systematic reviews included in the study, revealed that the most common result in the risk of bias was the unclear result for allocation concealment (selection bias) and random sequence generation (selection bias), as well as the highest risk of bias related to blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and the lowest risk of bias was related to random sequence generation (selection bias). During the scientometric phase, 332 sources and 44,842 references related to urinary incontinence were examined and various bibliographic results were obtained. According to scientometric study the most important related source was JOURNAL OF UROLOGY. the most cited documents are OLSEN AL, 1997, OBSTET GYNECOL.