Randomized Controlled Trials in the Journal of Sexual Medicine: A Quality Assessment and Relevant Clinical Impact

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

5 citations0/0 files storedThe Journal of Sexual Medicine

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 Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Quality assessment of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is important to prevent the adoption of findings of low-quality trials into clinical practice. AIM: The aim if this study was to analyze the quality of studies reporting RCTs in the Journal of Sexual Medicine (JSM) and to find relevant clinical impact. METHODS: A quality assessment was conducted in all studies identified as RCTs published in the JSM from 2004 to 2012. The review period was divided into three periods: early (2004-2006), mid (2007-2009), and late (2010-2012). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT) quality scoring instruments were used. The RCTs were also categorized by country of origin, topic, the inclusion of institutional review board (IRB) approval, funding, citation rate, and impact factor. RESULTS: A total of 2,418 original articles were published in the JSM during the review period, and 188 were reports of RCTs. There were 39 (14.89%), 70 (7.77%), and 76 (6.29%) RCTs published during the early, mid, and late terms, respectively (P < 0.001). No significant increases in Jadad or van Tulder scale scores were found over time nor were there any significant changes in the number of low-risk articles as assessed by the CCRBT. However, significant differences in quality analysis were found in funding and IRB approval. Citation rates and impact factor were not correlated with RCT quality using any of the tools. CONCLUSIONS: The number of original articles and RCTs published in the JSM increased over time. However, the ratio of RCTs to original articles did not increase significantly. Adequate randomization and blinding methods, IRB review, and financial support are required for the conduct of high-quality RCTs.

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 — 5 citations exist upstream.

References

1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials 2001Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials 2003Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group 1995Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists 2001Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials 1999Assessing the Quality of Randomized Trials

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.