Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review

Quality assessment of systematic literature on... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050" }, "headline": "Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review", "datePublished": "2022-09-14T11:39:01", "dateModified": "2024-03-08T11:54:34", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mary Okesola" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Julius Okesola" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Olubanke Ogunlana" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Israel Afolabi" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background A systematic literature review (SLR) is a research methodology that examines data and findings of other authors relative to specified research questions (RQ), collects multiple research studies, and summarises them to answer a research question using rigorous methods. Many SLRs have been published on uterine fibroids (UFs) in the last two decades but there is a dearth of knowledge on assessment of the quality to determine the reliability of results. Methods This study employed the SLR method to identify available SLRs published on UFs. Dybå and Dingsøyr quality standards and dichotomous grading scales were employed to determine the quality of primary studies. On February 3rd, 2022, an auto search was conducted twice over Citeseer, EBSCO, ACM, Springer Link, IEE Computer society digital library, and Scopus using 17 search strings. Two teams independently screened papers and compared notes with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. 11 criterial were adapted to evaluate the quality of the SLR’s. Results 33 SLRs were subjected to data extraction after inclusion/exclusion criteria. Answers to our primary research question was positive as the aims and contexts of the SLRs are generally clear and the methodologies employed are all inclusive. The research outputs of the primary studies are valid and justifiable as their research statements were clear and findings unambiguous. Although some studies failed some quality criteria, answers to all RQs were affirmative as the percentage scores of the studies on each of the quality conditions is favourably high. Conclusions The auto search may be incomplete because some qualified SLRs may have been missed as the choice of search strings was limited and may have omitted terminologies. Notwithstanding, with average quality scores of 83% in reporting, 81.2% in rigour, and 79% in credibility, this study concludes that majority of the meta-analysis published so far on UF are valid and reliable. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050", "name": "Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a..." } } ] } Home Browse Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Okesola M, Okesola J, Ogunlana O and Afolabi I. Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1050 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review Revised Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] Mary Okesola 1 , Julius Okesola https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4305-0692 2,3 , Olubanke Ogunlana https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5781-592X 1,4 , Israel Afolabi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8013-6570 1 Mary Okesola 1 , Julius Okesola https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4305-0692 2,3 , Olubanke Ogunlana https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5781-592X 1,4 , Israel Afolabi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8013-6570 1 PUBLISHED 08 Mar 2024 Author details Author details 1 Department of Biochemistry, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun, 039, Nigeria 2 Department of Computer Sciences, First Technical university, Ibadan, Oyo, 022, Nigeria 3 Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, Abuja, 09, Nigeria 4 Covenant Applied Informatics and Communication Africa Centre of Excellence (CApIC-ACE), Covenant University, Ota, Ogun, 039, Nigeria Mary Okesola Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Julius Okesola Roles: Methodology, Software, Writing – Review & Editing Olubanke Ogunlana Roles: Project Administration, Supervision Israel Afolabi Roles: Supervision, Validation OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background A systematic literature review (SLR) is a research methodology that examines data and findings of other authors relative to specified research questions (RQ), collects multiple research studies, and summarises them to answer a research question using rigorous methods. Many SLRs have been published on uterine fibroids (UFs) in the last two decades but there is a dearth of knowledge on assessment of the quality to determine the reliability of results. Methods This study employed the SLR method to identify available SLRs published on UFs. Dybå and Dingsøyr quality standards and dichotomous grading scales were employed to determine the quality of primary studies. On February 3rd, 2022, an auto search was conducted twice over Citeseer, EBSCO, ACM, Springer Link, IEE Computer society digital library, and Scopus using 17 search strings. Two teams independently screened papers and compared notes with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. 11 criterial were adapted to evaluate the quality of the SLR’s. Results 33 SLRs were subjected to data extraction after inclusion/exclusion criteria. Answers to our primary research question was positive as the aims and contexts of the SLRs are generally clear and the methodologies employed are all inclusive. The research outputs of the primary studies are valid and justifiable as their research statements were clear and findings unambiguous. Although some studies failed some quality criteria, answers to all RQs were affirmative as the percentage scores of the studies on each of the quality conditions is favourably high. Conclusions The auto search may be incomplete because some qualified SLRs may have been missed as the choice of search strings was limited and may have omitted terminologies. Notwithstanding, with average quality scores of 83% in reporting, 81.2% in rigour, and 79% in credibility, this study concludes that majority of the meta-analysis published so far on UF are valid and reliable. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Medicine, meta-analysis, Past Studies, Quality Condition, Quality Assessment, Structured Review, Systematic Literature Review; Uterine Fibroids. Corresponding Author(s) Mary Okesola ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Mary Okesola Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2024 Okesola M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Okesola M, Okesola J, Ogunlana O and Afolabi I. Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1050 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.2 ) First published: 14 Sep 2022, 11 :1050 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.1 ) Latest published: 08 Mar 2024, 11 :1050 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 The article has now been reviewed by an English Language Editor. The incorrect reference no 16 is now corrected to be 26. The article has now been reviewed by an English Language Editor. The incorrect reference no 16 is now corrected to be 26. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Mary Ann Lumsden See the authors' detailed response to the review by Andrea Etrusco READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Evidenced-based studies started in medicine and became generally accepted as expert opinions based on results obtained from scientific experiments appears more reliable than those obtained from medical advice. 1 Evidence here refers to a combination of best quality scientific works on a topic or research question. A systematic literature review (SLR) is a main method of this synthesis. It is a methodologically rigorous review of research results aimed not just at aggregating all existing evidence on a research question but also targeted at supporting the development of evidence-based guidelines for practitioners. 1 Its use in software engineering and computer sciences subject areas, and its application has been increasing since 2004 1 as it considers findings from varying sources to form a position. Notwithstanding this popularity, the quality of the SLRs’ results should be assessed to determine both the level of confidence to be placed on them as well as the required recommendations to offer. 2 As an instance, we have two schools of thought regarding gynaecological conditions in pregnancy. Myomectomy during ceserean section (CS) was condemned for severe bleeding and potential hysterectomy. Whereas, there are advocates for myomectomy at sittings of surgery three to six months after delivery to promote uterus involution, myomas shrinkage, and reduce operative time and blood loss. 3 , 4 Nowadays, gynaecologists are advocating for the removal of myoma due to its minimal operative time, mild (or no) complications to call for a second surgery, and gross reduction in the total cost of myomas surgery. Systematic literatures have reviewed the perioperative complications of caesarean myomectomy (CM) and found increased operative time and drop in haemoglobin in cases of caesarean myomectomy. 3 in their Evidenced-based reviews, Arowolo et al., 5 also argued that Uterine artery embolization advantages over surgery is short-term and that the benefits were similar on the mid- and long-term. However, the qualities of these studies have not been evaluated to raise the confidence in their findings and reduce bias in their review process for better interpretation of results. Primary studies assessment can actually be complicated since there is no specific definition for “quality”. 2 , 6 However, some notable researchers such as Jadadet et al., 7 Dybå and Dingsøyr, 8 Kitchenham et al.,, 9 and Sjoberg et al., 10 have successfully developed guidelines and tools specifically meant for the purpose, but much more concerned about what the results are, their validity, and whether or not they will be locally useful. 6 , 11 Since the “quality of a study is closely linked to the research methods used and the validity of the findings generated by the study”, 10 this study comprehensively reviewed the quality of the past available related studies published by evaluating various methods used by primary studies of each of the selected SLRs to clearly established the validity of their results. Hence, the authors did not place a date or year bound/limit on the search engine in other to have a sizeable number of primary studies to work with having realized that not much SLRs has been done on leiomyomas or myomas to date – February 3 rd , 2022. Past related works Quality is regarded as “an extent to which systematic errors or bias may be prevented through the review and analysis of primary studies”. 12 Yet, researchers are less interested in quality assurance and assessment as only very small numbers of SLRs aimed at the quality assessment of their primary studies. Orlando et al., 13 employed the National Institutes of Health Study Quality Assessment tools to perform quality assessment of SLR towards identifying the identifying best practices for non-hysteroscopic myomectomy for women with myomas but still desire future fertility. Their initial searches on selected databases returned 2,163 studies out of which only 51 met their inclusion criteria. The authors noted that the route of non-hysteroscopy myomectomy and intraoperative uterine artery occlusion did not significantly affect pregnancy rates or outcomes. Giving a clear insight into patient selection and intraoperative techniques for non-hysteroscopy myomectomy, the study recommended further research with well-designed clinical trials to highlight the relationships between myoma characteristics and reproductive outcomes. Notwithstanding its high prevalence, the fibroids psychosocial impact was yet to be compared with other chronic conditions and evaluated across the quality-of-life indicators. Hence, Go, Virginia et al., 14 thoroughly appraised the available evidence against the UF psychosocial burden in premenopausal women and contrasted the quality of life validated and symptom scores before and after treatment. The authors engaged three independent reviewers to screen various abstracts and tiles of selected SLRs towards obtaining full text studies from notable databases for further assessment. They observed that quality-of-life scores in UF patients were usually low at baseline compared to after treatment and that, there are therapeutic success and improvement of both physical and emotional symptoms after treatment. Tranoulis, Anastasios 15 auto-searched some digital libraries and broad indexes to produce the first meta-analysis that could provide a convincing overview of efficacy and safety of laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion (LUAO). Comparing the long and short-terms morbidity of laparoscopic myomectomy (even without LUAO), the study modified the Jadad score to assess the quality of Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but employed methodologic index for nonrandomized studies to evaluate the quality of observational studies (OSs). Symptomatic uterine myomas, two independent researchers in Jeng et al. , 16 carried out data selection to perform a comparative study of the clinical outcomes of uterine artery embolization and those of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation in women with myomas. The study quality was assessed using the “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews” while the pooled mean difference and relative risks were both calculated at 95% confidence interval for the respective continuous data and dichotomous data. Although, the authors could not ascertain that HIFU is far better for desired pregnancy considering the confounding factors, they postulated that uterine artery embolization (UAE) lowers both postoperative re-intervention rate and pregnancy rate for women with uterine myomas and provide more significant alleviation of symptoms and improvement in quality of life. Methods Researchers have built several guidelines and checklist good enough for quality assessment in SLR. 17 While majority of these tools rally round the validity of the research outcomes, a few others look more at the methodological characteristics of the study. Jadad et al., 7 and CASP 18 are popular tools and commonly adapted in Sociology and Software Engineering 19 but their scales are not directly applicable to Medicine. Hence, following the raising of the study questions and review of past related studies, Dybå and Dingsøyr 8 11 criterial were adapted in this study to evaluate the quality of the SLR’s primary studies. In which case, each of these criteria, graded with a dichotomous scale (Yes=1; No=0), is categorized into the following four main issues for ease of quality assessments. • Reporting : Criteria (1, 2, and 3) are about the quality of the report of research aims, rationale, and context. • Rigor : Criteria (4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) have to do with the objectivity of the research methods used to establish the validity of data collection tools and the analysis methods, and hence the trustworthiness of the findings. • Credibility : Criteria (9 and 10) are connected directly to assess the credibility of the research methods to ensure the validity of the findings. • Relevance : Criterion 11 is concerned with the relevance of the study to the research community.at large. The questions The primary research question (RQ) is “How reliable are the meta-analysis in the Uterine Fibroids”? This question is broken down into the following secondary questions to address the study objectives • RQ1: Are the SLRs studies centred on clear aims and description of context? • RQ2: How inclusive are the methodologies employed in the primary studies? • RQ3: Are the study output valid? The search process We conducted three independent searches on February 3 rd and 4 th 2022, and all were without publication date restriction. Our initial auto searches of five notable digital libraries and broad indexes for relevant SLRs (Citeseer, EBSCO, ACM,Springer Link, IEE Computer society digital library) did not return much related studies. Our second Search was over Scopus and returned 153 studies fleshed SLRs but PowerPoint templates or lecture notes. This search was complicated as it was done 17 times using the underlisted set of search strings (SS) since Scopus does not allow very simple construction of complex searches: 1. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “review of studies” 2. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “structured review” 3. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “systematic review” 4. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “literature review” 5. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “literature analysis” 6. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “in-depth survey” 7. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “literature survey” 8. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “meta-analysis” 9. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “past studies” 10. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “subject matter expert” 11. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “Analysis of research” 12. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “empirical body of knowledge” 13. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “overview of existing knowledge” 14. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “body of published research ” 15. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “review” 16. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “literature analysis” 17. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “literature listing” However, our third search, which was limited to the source - “Science Direct” only, was simple and straightforward as the underlisted complex searches were applied only once using the independent search strings SS1 and SS2 in isolation: SS1 Title, abstract or author-specified keywords (leiomyomas OR myomas) AND (“literature review” OR “systematic review” OR “structured review” OR “review of study” OR “literature analysis” OR “in-depth survey” OR “literature survey”) SS2 Title, abstract or author-specified keywords (leiomyomas OR myomas) AND (“meta-analysis” OR “past studies” OR “subject matter expert” OR “Analysis of research” OR “empirical body of knowledge” OR “overview of existing knowledge” OR “body of published research”) Having noted that not many SLRs are available on Fibroid studies, all searches were conducted without publication date restrictions. However, the searches were limited to document title and keywords, which usually carry the research subjects. To avoid human error, two researchers were engaged to independently conduct the literature search, and their results were compared for completeness. Searches over Scopus are mainly not fully fleshed out but they are still relevant to this study as their output helps to validate our search process when compared with papers found in our last search. Since 96 of 98 fully fleshed SLRs found therein were part of the total SLRs found in the third search, we adjudge our search process and procedure to be okay and accurate. Study selection The results of the three searches were integrated together to have 169 papers in total which we eventually subjected to initial screening over their title, abstract, and keywords. Sorting on the document title, the total papers was reduced to 65 having removed 104 articles including the 98 SLRs found in Scopus to avoid duplication since they are also found in Science Direct (our third search). We assume that the abstract or title of any quality papers should contain at least one of the search strings. Hence, searching over both the title and abstract columns to exclude papers that have no abstract 20 or those that exclude literature review or any of the search strings (SS), another 12 articles were removed and the total SLRs were further reduced to 53, all of which were subsequently subjected to a more detailed assessment: These 53 SLRs were electronically downloaded and two teams of two members each were formed to screen the papers for possible exclusion or inclusion. Consequently, the teams compared their notes to prevent false acceptance or false rejection, and differences were addressed following the underlisted exclusion criteria: • The SLR is not fully fleshed but a mere research or lesson note. • The topic is medicine or surgery and not related to Fibroid nor discusses systematic/literature reviews. • The SLR followed a vague search process. Three papers 6 , 21 , 22 were rejected in this process for not being full-fleshed research publications, but a mere research/lesson note or PowerPoint template. 15 SLRs were excluded based on unrelated topics or failure to discuss systematic literature but dissimilar domains like surgery or Microbiology. Similarly, two other papers 23 , 24 did not follow a defined search process and were dropped to have just 33 SLRs subjected to data extraction ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1. The study selection flow diagram. Data extraction process A similar procedure to data selection was followed to extract data and identified the SRSs presented on Table 1 . As a quality assurance measure, the following parameters were identified for each of the selected papers: • The publication date/year (to show how current the SLRs) • The type of the document (journal, workshop, book chapter, conference). • The number of primary studies in the SLR (as stated by the author). • The aspects of UF studied Table 1. Quality scores for the 33 systematic literature reviews (SLRs). Study No Year Document Type No of 1 o studies Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 16 2020 Journal article 408 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 27 2015 Journal article 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 28 2019 Journal article 2351 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 29 2014 Journal article 645 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 30 2018 Journal article 2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 2015 Journal article 345 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 32 2017 Journal article 986 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33 2016 Journal article 122 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 34 2010 Journal article 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 35 2012 Journal article 85 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 36 2014 Journal article 99 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 13 2020 Journal article 2163 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 37 2018 Journal article 18 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 38 2012 Journal article 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 39 2014 Journal article 676 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40 2017 Journal article 5347 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 41 2016 Journal article 756 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 42 2018 Journal article 907 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43 2015 Journal article 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 2020 Journal article 57 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 2020 Journal article 249 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 45 2019 Journal article 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 46 2010 Journal article 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 47 2015 Journal article 194 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 48 2016 Journal article 934 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 49 2019 Journal article 26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 2019 Journal article 568 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 2018 Journal article 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 51 2017 Journal article 12 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 52 2015 Journal article 3975 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 35 2012 Journal article 85 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 53 2018 Journal article 90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 54 2010 Journal article 196 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 27 28 27 22 23 23 23 26 26 26 33 Quality assessment This study employed the Dybå and Dingsøyr 7 criteria to evaluate the quality of the selected SLRs. 25 , 26 The choice of this set of criteria was because it contains 11 criteria checklists (as against others with fewer criteria) and covers all the main aspects of any research quality – reporting, credibility, relevance, and rigor. Adapted to this work, the selected SLRs are therefore independently assessed with the following criteria: Q1 Does the study answer the research questions defined or presents the results in a clear way? Q2: Is the research aim clearly stated? Q3: Is the context where the study was conducted adequately described? Q4: Was the study appropriately designed to address its aims and objectives? Q5: Was the recruitment strategy to drive the research aim appropriate? Q6: Were there control group(s) to compare with the treatments? Q7: Was the data collection method good enough to address research issues? Q8: Was the data analysis necessarily difficult? Q9: Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? Q10: Is the statement of findings clearly stated? Q11: Is the research valuable to practice or research interest? A dichotomous scale was used to score and grade the questions. In which case: TRUE T = 1 ; FALSE F = 0 . Our quality assessment procedure is like the one used for data selection ( Figure 1 ) where: 1. Two teams of two researchers each are formed and all the SLRs were individually assessed by each team. 2. Each team member independent treated each study by answering the quality questions, giving adequate justification. 3. The pair researchers compared their notes and agreed on terms to finalize their team results. 4. To avoid human error, two teams of researchers were engaged to independently conduct the literature search. They placed their findings side-by-side to compare their results, settle disputes (if any), and produce a quality output as presented on Table 1 . Results Our research questions are addressed on this section to ensure that they have all been answered and the SLRs’ qualities have been established. The results of the SLRs’ quality assessment are summarised on Table 2 . The pass mark is fixed at 50%. Table 2. Qualitative assessment of 33 systematic literature reviews (SLRs) on Leiomyomas or Myomas. SLRs Quality scores (QS) % Scores (QS/33) Research question (RQ) addressed Related Quality Conditions (QC) QC Met? Q1 Q2 Q3 27 28 27 82 85 82 RQ1 Reporting Yes, by 83% Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 22 23 23 33 33 67 70 70 100 100 RQ2 Rigour Yes, by 81.2% Q9 Q10 26 26 79 79 RQ3 Credibility Yes, by 79% Q11 33 100 Nil Relevance RQ1: Are the SLRs studies centred on Clear Aims and Description of Context? The answer to the RQ1 is positive as evidenced on Table 2 where the average score of Q1, Q2, and Q3 which particularly address RQ1 is 83% affirmative. Although five studies failed on Q2 and six failed on both Q1 and Q3 each, the percentage Scores of each on the quality condition (reporting) is favourably high. The failure on Q1 is traced to the five articles that properly addressed their research questions but failed to make their results/findings clear enough. Other failures were due to the articles that did not have clear research goals and those with obscure research contexts. Majority of the study representing 83% of the total samples, subjectively elucidated the (research) participants actions and made use of qualitative approaches, which is the most appropriate to address their study goals. RQ2: How inclusive are the methodologies employed in the primary studies? Yes, Most of the primary studies employed complete and all-encompassing research methodologies going by their QC score of 81% in “Rigour” on Table 2 . This answer to RQ2 is determined by the status of “rigour”, which is an absolute function of the average scores of Q4, Q5, Q6, and Q8. Although 10 of the 33 primary studies did not employ appropriate recruitment strategies for their studies, and the research objectives of 11 are inappropriately designed. Exactly 10 are also silent on the control group(s) required to compare their research methods. However, all of them gave extensive description of their analysis processes and present sufficient data to support their findings (Q7 and Q8); they were simple in data collection and detailed in sample analysis. RQ3: Are the study output valid and justifiable? Yes, the research outputs of the primary studies are valid and justifiable considering the 79% QC score on the research “credibility” even though, some of them truly failed on Q10 as their research statements were unclear and finding ambiguous. Some researchers did not actually consider their influence in their research questions formulation, sample collection and even their choice of location (Q9), but this is limited to only five primary studies where the researchers disclosed their possibilities of being biased. Hence, adequate recognition was given to the relationship between the researcher and the participants Study limitations We may have missed some qualified studies that used other terminologies to describe their literature review. Notwithstanding, this cannot be major as our search strings did not leave out any related terminologies found in every literature reviewed except “research aggregation” and “study/research synthesis” which we stumbled on at the tail end of this study Future researchers should take notes of these terminologies to avoid omission of qualified SLRs for review. Conclusion All the SLRs passed all the quality questions ( Table 2 ) with the lowest in Q4. They also met and greatly surpassed all the quality conditions (QC) to clearly confirm that the primary studies are valid and of good quality. Therefore, answer to our primary (RQ) raised is affirmative; the meta-analysis in the Uterine Fibroids are very reliable. However, the SLRs needed to appropriately design their studies to be specific on their goals and objectives. They should also be explicit on the control groups with which their treatments and research methods are compared. It is important for auto search to be complete and error free for reliable outputs and valid findings. When planning future studies therefore, the researchers should extend their search strings to include other terminologies that may have been missed in this study. Data availability All data underlying the results are available as part of the article and no additional source data are required. Reporting guidelines Figshare: PRISMA checklist for ‘Quality assessment of systematic literatures on uterine fibroids: a systematic review’, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20654010.v1 . 55 Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). Acknowledgment This study was supported by Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria in paying the APC for this study. References 1. Kitchenham B, Pearl Brereton O, Budgen D, et al. : Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2009; 51 (1): 7–15. Publisher Full Text 2. Okesola JO, Okokpujie KO, Adebiyi AA, et al. : QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SYSTEMATIC LITERATURES IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2018; 96 (18): 6018–6027. 3. Baby HA, et al. : Myomectomy during caesarean section: Safety and feasibility of the procedure. Bangladesh J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 30 (1): 10–14. Publisher Full Text 4. Sparić R, Guido M, Tinelli A: Miomektomia podczas cieogonekcia cesarskiego i mozliwe czynniki ryzyka przyjeeogonekcia do oddziału intensywnej terapii-badanie retrospektywne. Ginekol. Pol. 2015; 86 (10): 731–736. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 5. Arowolo MO, Adebiyi MO, Ariyo AA, et al. : A genetic algorithm approach for predicting ribonucleic acid sequencing data classification using KNN and decision tree. Telkomnika (Telecommunication Comput. Electron. Control). 2021; 19 (1): 310–316. Publisher Full Text 6. Okesola MA, Ogunlana O, Afolabi I, et al. : Ameliorative effect of Zingiber officinale on chemical induced dna damage in rats using PCR analysis. Biointerface Res. Appl. Chem. 2021; 11 (4): 11135–11144. Publisher Full Text 7. Jadad AR, et al. : Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control. Clin. Trials. 1996; 17 (1): 1–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 8. Dybå T, Dingsøyr T: Strength of Evidence in Systematic Reviews in Software Engineering. Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement. 2008; (no. 7465): pp. 178–187. 9. Kitchenham BA, et al. : Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering. Main. 2002; 28 (8): 721–734. Publisher Full Text 10. Sjoberg DIK, Dyba T, Jorgensen M: The Future of Empirical Methods in Software Engineering Research. Futur. Softw. Eng. (FOSE’07). 2007; (JUNE): 358–378. Publisher Full Text 11. Adamek A, Kasprzak A: Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF) System in Liver Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018; 19 (5): 1–24. Publisher Full Text 12. Chiroma H, et al. : Deep Learning Solutions for Protein: Recent Development and Future Directions. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems 254 International Conference on Emerging Applications and Technologies for Industry 4.0 (EATI’2020) Emerging Applications and Technologies for Industry 4.0. 2020; vol. 254 : pp. 254–271. Reference Source 13. Orlando M, Kollikonda S, Hackett L, et al. : Non-hysteroscopic Myomectomy and Fertility Outcomes: A Systematic Review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2021; 28 (3): 598–618.e1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 14. Arlene VG, et al. : A systematic review of the psychosocial impact of fibroids before and after treatment. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020; 223 (5): 674–708.e8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 15. Tranoulis A, Georgiou D, Alazzam M, et al. : Combined Laparoscopic Uterine Artery Occlusion and Myomectomy versus Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Direct-Comparison Meta-Analysis of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Women with Symptomatic Leiomyomas. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 26 (5): 826–837. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 16. Jeng CJ, Long CY, Chuang LT: Comparison of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound with uterine artery embolization for the treatment of uterine myoma: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020; 59 (5): 691–697. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 17. Lu X, et al. : Zinc is essential for the transcription function of the PGC-1α/Nrf2 signaling pathway in human primary endometrial stromal cells. Am. J. Physiol. - Cell Physiol. 2020; 318 (3): C640–C648. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 18. P.H.R.U: Critical Appraisal skills programme (CASP).1994; (no. 2017): pp. 1–5. Reference Source 19. Zhou Y, Zhang H, Huang X, et al. : Quality assessment of systematic reviews in software engineering: A tertiary study. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 2015; vol. 27-29-April . Publisher Full Text 20. Anderson S, Sagar P, Smith B, et al. : What we have learnt adopting evidence-based software engineering for industrial practice. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 2016; vol. 01-03-June . Publisher Full Text 21. Rousseau M, et al. : Can the risks associated with uterine sarcoma morcellation really be prevented? Overview of the role of uterine morcellation in 2018. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 47 (8): 341–349. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 22. Badr DA, Al Hassan J, Salem Wehbe G, et al. : Uterine body placenta accreta spectrum: A detailed literature review. Placenta. 2020; 95 : 44–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 23. Thubert T, et al. : Surgical treatment: Myomectomy and hysterectomy; Endoscopy: A major advancement. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2016; 34 : 104–121. Publisher Full Text 24. Shen Q, et al. : Effects of Laparoscopic Versus Minilaparotomic Myomectomy on Uterine Leiomyoma: A Meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22 (2): 177–184. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 25. Afolabi IS, et al. : Production of a new Plant-Based Milk from Adenanthera pavonina seed and evaluation of its nutritional and health Benefits. Front. Nutr. 2018; 5 (9): 1–13. Publisher Full Text 26. Iheagwam FN, Ogunlana OO, Ogunlana OE, et al. : Potential anti-cancer flavonoids isolated from caesalpinia bonduc young twigs and leaves: Molecular docking and in silico studies. Bioinform. Biol. Insights. 2019; 13 : 117793221882137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 27. Kainsbak J, Hansen ES, Dueholm M: Literature review of outcomes and prevalence and case report of leiomyosarcomas and non-typical uterine smooth muscle leiomyoma tumors treated with uterine artery embolization. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2015; 191 : 130–137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 28. Braga A, et al. : What is this vaginal bulge? An atypical case of vaginal paraurethral leiomyoma. A case report and literature systematic review. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2021; 50 (6): 101822. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 29. Jiang W, Shen Q, Chen M, et al. : Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system use in premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine leiomyoma: A systematic review. Steroids. 2014; 86 (May): 69–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 30. Gingold JA, Chichura A, Harnegie MP, et al. : Perioperative Interventions to Minimize Blood Loss at the Time of Hysterectomy for Uterine Leiomyomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 26 (7): 1234–1252.e1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 31. Chiaffarino F, Ricci E, Cipriani S, et al. : Cigarette smoking and risk of uterine myoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016; 197 : 63–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 32. Fonseca MCM, Castro R, Machado M, et al. : Uterine Artery Embolization and Surgical Methods for the Treatment of Symptomatic Uterine Leiomyomas: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis Followed by Indirect Treatment Comparison. Clin. Ther. 2017; 39 (7): 1438–1455.e2. Publisher Full Text 33. Keltz J, Levie M, Chudnoff S: Pregnancy Outcomes After Direct Uterine Myoma Thermal Ablation: Review of the Literature. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24 (4): 538–545. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 34. Chang CC, Hsieh YY, Lin WH, et al. : Leiomyoma and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Gene Polymorphisms: A Systematic Review. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 49 (3): 247–253. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 35. Pundir J, Pundir V, Walavalkar R, et al. : Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic vs Abdominal and Laparoscopic Myomectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20 (3): 335–345. Publisher Full Text 36. Pritts EA, Parker WH, Brown J, et al. : Outcome of occult uterine leiomyosarcoma after surgery for presumed uterine fibroids: A systematic review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22 (1): 26–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 37. Mourgues J, Villot A, Thubert T, et al. : Uterine myomas and lower urinary tract dysfunctions: A literature review. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2019; 48 (9): 771–774. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 38. Lewis EI, Chason RJ, Decherney AH, et al. : Novel hormone treatment of benign metastasizing leiomyoma: An analysis of five cases and literature review. Fertil. Steril. 2013; 99 (7): 2017–2024. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 39. Koo YJ, et al. : Pregnancy Outcomes and Risk Factors for Uterine Rupture After Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Single-Center Experience and Literature Review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22 (6): 1022–1028. Publisher Full Text 40. Maheux-Lacroix S, Li F, Laberge PY, et al. : A Systematic Review of Imaging for Polyps and Leiomyomas in Women with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24 (7): S60–S61. Publisher Full Text 41. Lete I, González J, Ugarte L, et al. : Parasitic leiomyomas: A systematic review. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016; 203 : 250–259. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 42. Lee D, Lee JR, Suh CS, et al. : A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing single port laparoscopic myomectomy with conventional laparoscopic myomectomy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2019; 239 : 52–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 43. Krungkraipetch K: Laparoscopic myomectomy with simultaneous uterine artery ligation: A literature review of prospective studies. J. Reprod. Heal. Med. 2016; 2 (2): 67–73. Publisher Full Text 44. Goyal M, et al. : Cesarean myomectomy in the last ten years; A true shift from contraindication to indication: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2021; 256 : 145–157. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 45. Nair S, Gill AJ, Dhupar N, et al. : 38. Fumarate hydratase-deficient uterine leiomyoma – Case report and literature review. Pathology. 2019; 51 : S159–S160. Publisher Full Text 46. A. AdvancingM. InvasiveG. Worldwide: AAGL Practice Report: Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Submucous Leiomyomas. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2012; 19 (2): 152–171. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 47. Zhang Y, Ma D, Li X, et al. : Role of Barbed Sutures in Repairing Uterine Wall Defects in Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23 (5): 684–691. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 48. Russo M, Suen M, Bedaiwy M, et al. : Prevalence of Uterine Myomas Among Women with 2 or More Recurrent Pregnancy Losses: A Systematic Review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23 (5): 702–706. Publisher Full Text 49. Sanders AP, Chan WV, Tang J, et al. : Surgical outcomes after uterine artery occlusion at the time of myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2019; 111 (4): 816–827.e4. Publisher Full Text 50. Verpalen IM, et al. : Magnetic resonance-high intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) therapy of symptomatic uterine fibroids with unrestrictive treatment protocols: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Radiol. 2019; 120 : 108700. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 51. Sizzi O, et al. : Assessing the risk of laparoscopic morcellation of occult uterine sarcomas during hysterectomy and myomectomy: Literature review and the ISGE recommendations. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2018; 220 : 30–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 52. Shazly SAM, et al. : Hysteroscopic Morcellation Versus Resection for the Treatment of Uterine Cavitary Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23 (6): 867–877. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 53. Qin H, Lin Z, Vásquez E, et al. : High soy isoflavone or soy-based food intake during infancy and in adulthood is associated with an increased risk of uterine fibroids in premenopausal women: a meta-analysis. Nutr. Res. 2019; 71 : 30–42. Publisher Full Text 54. Van Der Kooij SM, Bipat S, Hehenkamp WJK, et al. : Uterine artery embolization versus surgery in the treatment of symptomatic fibroids: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2011; 205 (4): 317.e1–317.e18. Publisher Full Text 55. Okesola J, Okesola M, Ogunlana O, et al. : PRISMA_2020_checklist.docx. figshare. Journal Contribution. 2022. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 14 Sep 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Biochemistry, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun, 039, Nigeria 2 Department of Computer Sciences, First Technical university, Ibadan, Oyo, 022, Nigeria 3 Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, Abuja, 09, Nigeria 4 Covenant Applied Informatics and Communication Africa Centre of Excellence (CApIC-ACE), Covenant University, Ota, Ogun, 039, Nigeria Mary Okesola Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Julius Okesola Roles: Methodology, Software, Writing – Review & Editing Olubanke Ogunlana Roles: Project Administration, Supervision Israel Afolabi Roles: Supervision, Validation Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 08 Mar 2024, 11:1050 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.2 version 1 Published: 14 Sep 2022, 11:1050 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.1 Copyright © 2024 Okesola M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Okesola M, Okesola J, Ogunlana O and Afolabi I. Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1050 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 14 Sep 2022 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Etrusco A. Reviewer Report For: Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1050 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137116.r215409 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050/v1#referee-response-215409 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 18 Oct 2023 Andrea Etrusco , Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), Unit of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS "Civico - Di Cristina - Benfratelli",University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137116.r215409 I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review”, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough ... Continue reading READ ALL I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review”, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key articles about the topic. Authors should consider the following recommendations: Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor; FIGO has recently updated the classification of uterine leiomyomas, giving to FIGO type 3 myoma a different importance which can open up new therapeutic scenarios. The study does not cite the only meta-analysis present in the literature (PMID: 37183601), and the only systematic review present in the literature (PMID: 37568356) in this regard. Your article should be expanded with these two revisions. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes References 1. Favilli A, Etrusco A, Chiantera V, Laganà AS, et al.: Impact of FIGO type 3 uterine fibroids on in vitro fertilization outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet . 2023. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Etrusco A, Laganà AS, Chiantera V, Vitagliano A, et al.: Feasibility and Surgical Outcomes of Hysteroscopic Myomectomy of FIGO Type 3 Myoma: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med . 2023; 12 (15). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Obstetrics and Gynecology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Etrusco A. Reviewer Report For: Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1050 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137116.r215409 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050/v1#referee-response-215409 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 13 Apr 2024 Julius Okesola , Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, 09, Nigeria 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor: The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor. Your article should ... Continue reading Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor: The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor. Your article should be expanded with these two revisions of FIGO publications - PMID: 37183601 and PMID: 37568356. It is practically impossible for our study to be expanded with these two studies as both were published years after our auto search was conducted. The first was published on May 15 2023 while the other was published on July 27, 2023. Whereas, o ur auto search was conducted on February 3rd and 4 th , 2022 – almost one and half years earlier. Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor: The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor. Your article should be expanded with these two revisions of FIGO publications - PMID: 37183601 and PMID: 37568356. It is practically impossible for our study to be expanded with these two studies as both were published years after our auto search was conducted. The first was published on May 15 2023 while the other was published on July 27, 2023. Whereas, o ur auto search was conducted on February 3rd and 4 th , 2022 – almost one and half years earlier. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 13 Apr 2024 Julius Okesola , Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, 09, Nigeria 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor: The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor. Your article should ... Continue reading Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor: The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor. Your article should be expanded with these two revisions of FIGO publications - PMID: 37183601 and PMID: 37568356. It is practically impossible for our study to be expanded with these two studies as both were published years after our auto search was conducted. The first was published on May 15 2023 while the other was published on July 27, 2023. Whereas, o ur auto search was conducted on February 3rd and 4 th , 2022 – almost one and half years earlier. Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor: The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor. Your article should be expanded with these two revisions of FIGO publications - PMID: 37183601 and PMID: 37568356. It is practically impossible for our study to be expanded with these two studies as both were published years after our auto search was conducted. The first was published on May 15 2023 while the other was published on July 27, 2023. Whereas, o ur auto search was conducted on February 3rd and 4 th , 2022 – almost one and half years earlier. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Lumsden MA. Reviewer Report For: Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1050 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137116.r165452 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050/v1#referee-response-165452 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 31 Mar 2023 Mary Ann Lumsden , University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137116.r165452 A systematic review of systematic reviews is an interesting concept and should be helpful. However, it is always important to remember that all systematic reviews are only as good as the studies included in them and the ... Continue reading READ ALL A systematic review of systematic reviews is an interesting concept and should be helpful. However, it is always important to remember that all systematic reviews are only as good as the studies included in them and the methodologies used. The authors state that they give more account to the results and their plausibility than the methodology and I feel this is rather a pity as it misses an opportunity to do something really meaningful. It was done very quickly which surprised me and I do not generally use these databases for a search such as this. However, the use of the 11 criteria is certainly valid but I would like to have had more detail on this and how it was assessed. I do not think it true that all SLRs do not assess quality, particularly those in the better journals. I also wondered about the use of the examples of choosing non-hysteroscopic myomectomy which I would rate well and the 2nd on pychosocial burden. Assessment of non-randomised studies is fraught with problems and are unlikely to be high quality studies by definition. Thus drawing conclusions from an SLR is unlikely to be useful. In addition there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26. RQ2 worried me considerably: 'Although 10 of the 33 primary studies did not employ appropriate recruitment strategies for their studies, and the research objectives of 11 are inappropriately designed. Exactly 10 are also silent on the control group(s) required to compare their research methods. However, all of them gave extensive description of their analysis processes and present sufficient data to support their findings (Q7 and Q8); they were simple in data collection and detailed in sample analysis.' I can't help feeling that any conclusions drawn here would be meaningless. Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think I think must include consideration of methods use and not just results to be meaningful. I look forward to hearing more about the ideas in this article. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: I am retired from active research but undertook several RCTs involving treatment of uterine fibroids. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Lumsden MA. Reviewer Report For: Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1050 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137116.r165452 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050/v1#referee-response-165452 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 13 Apr 2024 Julius Okesola , Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, 09, Nigeria 13 Apr 2024 Author Response … In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26. Now corrected Overall this is a methodology ... Continue reading … In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26. Now corrected Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think it must include consideration of methods use and not just results... Consideration of Methods have been addressed in the first paragraph of the ‘Method’ section where Dybå and Dingsøyr 8 criterial which are popularly considered suitable in Medicine were adapted in this study. … In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26. Now corrected Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think it must include consideration of methods use and not just results... Consideration of Methods have been addressed in the first paragraph of the ‘Method’ section where Dybå and Dingsøyr 8 criterial which are popularly considered suitable in Medicine were adapted in this study. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 13 Apr 2024 Julius Okesola , Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, 09, Nigeria 13 Apr 2024 Author Response … In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26. Now corrected Overall this is a methodology ... Continue reading … In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26. Now corrected Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think it must include consideration of methods use and not just results... Consideration of Methods have been addressed in the first paragraph of the ‘Method’ section where Dybå and Dingsøyr 8 criterial which are popularly considered suitable in Medicine were adapted in this study. … In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26. Now corrected Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think it must include consideration of methods use and not just results... Consideration of Methods have been addressed in the first paragraph of the ‘Method’ section where Dybå and Dingsøyr 8 criterial which are popularly considered suitable in Medicine were adapted in this study. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 14 Sep 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 2 (revision) 08 Mar 24 Version 1 14 Sep 22 read read Mary Ann Lumsden , University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Andrea Etrusco , Unit of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS "Civico - Di Cristina - Benfratelli",University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Etrusco A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 18 Oct 2023 | for Version 1 Andrea Etrusco , Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), Unit of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS "Civico - Di Cristina - Benfratelli",University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy 0 Views copyright © 2023 Etrusco A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review”, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key articles about the topic. Authors should consider the following recommendations: Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor; FIGO has recently updated the classification of uterine leiomyomas, giving to FIGO type 3 myoma a different importance which can open up new therapeutic scenarios. The study does not cite the only meta-analysis present in the literature (PMID: 37183601), and the only systematic review present in the literature (PMID: 37568356) in this regard. Your article should be expanded with these two revisions. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes References 1. Favilli A, Etrusco A, Chiantera V, Laganà AS, et al.: Impact of FIGO type 3 uterine fibroids on in vitro fertilization outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet . 2023. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Etrusco A, Laganà AS, Chiantera V, Vitagliano A, et al.: Feasibility and Surgical Outcomes of Hysteroscopic Myomectomy of FIGO Type 3 Myoma: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med . 2023; 12 (15). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Obstetrics and Gynecology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 13 Apr 2024 Julius Okesola, Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, 09, Nigeria Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor: The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor. Your article should be expanded with these two revisions of FIGO publications - PMID: 37183601 and PMID: 37568356. It is practically impossible for our study to be expanded with these two studies as both were published years after our auto search was conducted. The first was published on May 15 2023 while the other was published on July 27, 2023. Whereas, o ur auto search was conducted on February 3rd and 4 th , 2022 – almost one and half years earlier. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Etrusco A. Peer Review Report For: Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1050 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137116.r215409) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050/v1#referee-response-215409 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Lumsden M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 31 Mar 2023 | for Version 1 Mary Ann Lumsden , University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK 0 Views copyright © 2023 Lumsden M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions A systematic review of systematic reviews is an interesting concept and should be helpful. However, it is always important to remember that all systematic reviews are only as good as the studies included in them and the methodologies used. The authors state that they give more account to the results and their plausibility than the methodology and I feel this is rather a pity as it misses an opportunity to do something really meaningful. It was done very quickly which surprised me and I do not generally use these databases for a search such as this. However, the use of the 11 criteria is certainly valid but I would like to have had more detail on this and how it was assessed. I do not think it true that all SLRs do not assess quality, particularly those in the better journals. I also wondered about the use of the examples of choosing non-hysteroscopic myomectomy which I would rate well and the 2nd on pychosocial burden. Assessment of non-randomised studies is fraught with problems and are unlikely to be high quality studies by definition. Thus drawing conclusions from an SLR is unlikely to be useful. In addition there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26. RQ2 worried me considerably: 'Although 10 of the 33 primary studies did not employ appropriate recruitment strategies for their studies, and the research objectives of 11 are inappropriately designed. Exactly 10 are also silent on the control group(s) required to compare their research methods. However, all of them gave extensive description of their analysis processes and present sufficient data to support their findings (Q7 and Q8); they were simple in data collection and detailed in sample analysis.' I can't help feeling that any conclusions drawn here would be meaningless. Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think I think must include consideration of methods use and not just results to be meaningful. I look forward to hearing more about the ideas in this article. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise I am retired from active research but undertook several RCTs involving treatment of uterine fibroids. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 13 Apr 2024 Julius Okesola, Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, 09, Nigeria … In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26. Now corrected Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think it must include consideration of methods use and not just results... Consideration of Methods have been addressed in the first paragraph of the ‘Method’ section where Dybå and Dingsøyr 8 criterial which are popularly considered suitable in Medicine were adapted in this study. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Lumsden MA. Peer Review Report For: Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1050 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137116.r165452) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050/v1#referee-response-165452 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Quality assessment of systematic literature...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Okesola M et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050", templates : { twitter : "Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids:.... Okesola M et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1050/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/124879/162870") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "162870"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "180486": 0, "180488": 0, "180489": 0, "159502": 0, "180494": 0, "159503": 0, "180495": 0, "159500": 0, "180492": 0, "159501": 0, "180498": 0, "180499": 0, "159504": 0, "180496": 0, "180497": 0, "365087": 0, "318244": 0, "365093": 0, "318245": 0, "365092": 0, "318246": 0, "365095": 0, "318247": 0, "365094": 0, "365089": 0, "152359": 0, "365088": 0, "365091": 0, "365090": 0, "152362": 0, "318252": 0, "307244": 0, "152363": 0, "318253": 0, "307245": 0, "152360": 0, "307246": 0, "152361": 0, "307247": 0, "301615": 0, "318248": 0, "318249": 0, "152364": 0, "307242": 0, "318250": 0, "152365": 0, "318251": 0, "307243": 0, "314932": 0, "301620": 0, "153395": 0, "314933": 0, "301621": 0, "301622": 0, "314934": 0, "301623": 0, "314935": 0, "307248": 0, "301616": 0, "307249": 0, "314929": 0, "301617": 0, "307250": 0, "314930": 0, "301618": 0, "307251": 0, "314931": 0, "301619": 0, "314936": 0, "301624": 0, "314937": 0, "314938": 0, "404038": 0, "404039": 0, "404036": 0, "404037": 0, "165450": 0, "404046": 0, "165451": 0, "404044": 0, "404045": 0, "404042": 0, "404043": 0, "165452": 28, "404040": 0, "165453": 0, "171866": 0, "171867": 0, "171865": 0, "171870": 0, "171871": 0, "171868": 0, "171869": 0, "171874": 0, "171872": 0, "171873": 0, "215407": 0, "215406": 0, "254062": 0, "215405": 0, "254061": 0, "215411": 0, "215410": 0, "215409": 17, "215408": 0, "215414": 0, "215413": 0, "215412": 0, "472447": 0, "150398": 0, "150399": 0, "150397": 0, "472455": 0, "472454": 0, "150400": 0, "472453": 0, "472452": 0, "472451": 0, "472450": 0, "472449": 0, "472448": 0, "472456": 0, "151480": 0, "187582": 0, "187583": 0, "187586": 0, "187587": 0, "187584": 0, "187585": 0, "187590": 0, "187591": 0, "187588": 0, "187589": 0, "312014": 0, "312015": 0, "269780": 0, "269781": 0, "269782": 0, "269783": 0, "269784": 0, "161526": 0, "161527": 0, "161525": 0, "161528": 0, "161529": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "3ebc04c7-151d-495e-8f62-fc6c8eb9249b"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });