Randomized Controlled Trials In Endourology: A Quality Assessment

Jung Ki Jo · Riccardo Autorino B · Jae Hoon Chung · Kyu Shik Kim · Jeong Woo Lee · Eun Jung Baek +1 more

12 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Endourology

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 Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Abstract

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 (2006-2011) 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.

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 — 12 citations exist upstream.

References

1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials 1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement 2001Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials 2003Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group

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.