Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in the Korean Journal of Urology Over the Past 20 Years

Lee

2013

Korean J Urol

Self Cite

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.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Lee et al [11] analyzed all RCTs published in the Korean Journal of Urology (Korean J Urol). The present study assessed the quality of urological RCTs that were conducted in Korea by using the Jadad scale, the van Tulder scale, and the CCRBT.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lee

2013

Korean J Urol

Self Cite

“…Scales and associates 11 reported that the number of RCTs increased over time when they compared RCTs reported by the Journal of Urology, Urology, European Urology, and British Journal of Urology International in 1996 and 2004. Lee and colleagues 12 performed a quality assessment using the Jadad scale on articles published in the Korean Journal of Urology over the past 20 years and observed an increase in the number of RCTs over time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized Controlled Trials In Endourology: A Quality Assessment

Autorino

et al. 2013

Journal of Endourology

Self Cite

Purpose: To analyze the quality of studies reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of endourology. Materials and Methods: RCTs published in the Journal of Endourology from 1993 until 2011 were identified. The Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT) were used to assess the quality of the studies. The review period was divided into early (1993-1999), mid (2000-2005), and late (2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011) terms. Studies were categorized by country of origin, subject matter, single-vs multicenter setting, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and funding support, and blinding vs nonblinding. Results: In total, 3339 articles had been published during the defined review period, of which 165 articles were reporting a RCT. There was a significant increase in the number of RCTs published over time, with 18 (2.81%), 43 (4.88%), and 104 (5.72%) studies identified in the early, mid, and late term, respectively (P = 0.009). Nevertheless, there was no difference in terms of quality of reporting, as assessed with the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, or CCRBT, between the three study terms. On the other hand, significant differences were found in both the number of high qualitative RCTs that used blinding methodology and those that had IRB review, when comparing the early, mid, and late terms. Conclusion: There has been a growing number of Journal of Endourology publications reporting on RTC over the last two decades. The quality of reporting for these studies remains suboptimal, however. Researchers should focus on a more appropriate description of key features of any given RCT, such as randomization and allocation methods, as well as disclosure of IRB review and financial support.

“…Lee et al19 analyzed the quality of RCTs that had been published in the Korean Journal of Urology by the Jadad scale. Twenty-eight RCTs have appeared since 1991 in the Korean Journal of Urology .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, Lee et al19 showed that only one article had adequate allocation concealment. In the present study, compared to Lee et al,19 the mean Jadad scale score (2.95±0.76) was higher. However, in the present study, only 1 RCT had adequate allocation concealment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Quality Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials about Erectile Dysfunction

Lee

et al. 2013

World J Mens Health

Self Cite

PurposeA low quality clinical trial could produce errors, and these errors could, in turn, distort the results of the clinical trial. To avoid applying distorted results of trials clinically, a quality analysis of clinical trials is needed.Materials and MethodsWe selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about erectile dysfunction (ED) conducted in Korea using Medline and KoreaMed. Quality assessment of selected RCTs was performed using three assessment tools (Jadad scales, van Tulder scale, Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool [CCRBT]).ResultsThe first RCT about ED conducted in Korea was published in 2002. Since 2002, a total of 20 RCTs have been published in medical journals. Among the 20 articles, only 1 article was found to have a low risk of bias according to the CCRBT. On the Jadad scale, there were 17 high quality articles, while 19 articles were assessed as high quality by the VTS. Only 2 RCTs described the randomization method adequately. Only 1 RCT presented allocation concealment.ConclusionsA low quality clinical trial could produce errors, and these errors could, in turn, distort the results of the clinical trial. To avoid applying distorted results of trials clinically, a quality analysis of clinical trials is needed. The quality of RCTs was found to be high because almost all of the selected RCTs were double blinded studies. However, the quality of RCTs was inadequate with regard to the lack of randomization and absence of allocation concealment. Therefore, performing adequate randomization and adding a description of the appropriate concealment of allocation may improve the quality of RCTs.