Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials published in neurourology and urodynamics from 1993 to 2012

Jeong Woo Lee · Jae Hoon Chung · Jung Ki Jo · Seung Wook Lee

6 citations0/0 files storedNeurourology and Urodynamics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

AIMS: To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Neurourology and Urodynamics (NAU) by using three types of analytical tools. METHODS: MEDLINE was used to extract RCTs from original articles published in the NAU from 1993 to 2012. The relationship between the number of articles and RCTs with time and that between various factors and the quality of RCTs were analyzed. To analyze the quality of the RCTs, the time period was divided into four sections and three tools were applied (e.g., the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool [CCRBT]). RESULTS: Among the 1,957 original articles, 93 (4.75%) were RCTs. The ratio between the number of NAU and RCTs over time increased. The Jadad score for years 1993-1997 was 3.25 ± 1.71, 1998-2002 was 2.10 ± 0.74, 2003-2007 was 2.09 ± 1.12, and 2008-2012 was 2.80 ± 1.09 (P = 0.014). The van Tulder scales were 6.25 ± 3.10, 4.40 ± 1.65, 4.97 ± 1.99, and 5.93 ± 1.98, respectively (P = 0.055). The CCRBT identified a low risk of bias in 1 (25%), 0 (0%), 1 (2.86%), and 5 (11.36%) articles, respectively. Trials with allocation concealment, Institutional review board (IRB) approval, and blinded studies had significantly higher quality than others. CONCLUSIONS: The quantitative increase of RCT presented in NAU over time was observed but there was no definite qualitative improvement. Effort is required to improve the quality of RCTs published in NAU from the design step.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

References

1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 2003Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group 2005Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals 2005Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 4. Assessing heterogeneity of primary studies in systematic reviews and whether to combine their results 2007A Critical Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomized, Controlled Trials in the Urology Literature 2010Randomized Clinical Trials Presented at the World Congress of Endourology: How Is the Quality of Reporting?

Cited by

2021Quality Assessment and Relevant Clinical Impact of Randomized Controlled Trials of Varicocele: Next Step to Good-Quality Randomized Controlled Trial of Varicocele Treatment 2019Trustworthiness of randomized trials in endocrinology—A systematic survey

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.