Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Urological Trials Conducted by Korean Medical Institutions

Abstract

PurposeTo assess the quality of randomized controlled urological trials conducted by Korean medical institutions.Materials and MethodsQuality assessment was conducted by using the Jadad scale; in addition, the van Tulder scale and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool were used as individual indices. All assessments were performed by two reviewers. If the outcomes differed, the two reviewers and a third reviewer adjusted the discrepancy in the results through discussion. Starting from 1986, a quality analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in 1-year and 5-year units. The quality assessment was conducted by subject, type of intervention, presence of double blinding, presence of funding, and review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).ResultsWhereas the number of RCTs published has gradually increased, there was no significant difference in the quality of the RCTs according to publication year. Drug studies, double-blind studies, studies with funding, and studies reviewed by IRBs had higher quality scores and a higher percentage of high-quality RCTs than did other studies. Thirty-six RCTs were published in journals included in the Science Citation Index and 20 RCTs were published in journals included in the Science Citation Index Expanded. The largest number of RCTs (32.32%) were published by the Korean Journal of Urology.ConclusionsA quantitative increase was observed in RCTs over time, but no qualitative improvement in the RCTs was observed. It seems necessary to put effort into the quality improvement of RCTs at the design stage.

Efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens in treatment of advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: A network meta‐analysis

“…The assessment assigns a judgment of “yes,” “no,” or “unclear” for each domain to designate a low, high, or unclear risk of bias respectively. The study having a low risk of bias was determined if one or no domain was considered or labeled “unclear” or “no.” The study was classified as having a high risk of bias contained four or more domains and was considered or labeled “unclear” or “no” (Chung & Lee, ). The quality of the current study and publication bias were evaluated by Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5.2.3, Cochrane Collaboration, and Oxford, UK).…”

Preventive Effects of Different Drugs on Asymptomatic Lower Extremities Deep Venous Thrombosis After Artificial Joint Replacement: A Mixed Treatment Comparison

“…The study showed a high risk of bias if 4 or more domains were regarded as "unclear" or "no." 19 Quality evaluation and investigation of risk of bias were performed using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5.2.3; Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom).…”

Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Drugs on Non-Motor Symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease: a Network Meta-Analysis

“…When four or more aspects are deemed “unclear” or “no,” the study has a high risk of bias. If two or three aspects are deemed “unclear” or “no,” the study has a moderate risk of bias [22]. Quality assessment of publication bias was performed by Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5.2.3, Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).…”