No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Background: Because low quality trials may lead to wrong conclusions, quality assessments are necessary.Thus, this study scrutinizes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine (KAFM) to assess the quantity and the quality.Methods: Upon extracting randomized controlled trials from all the articles published in the Journal of the KAFM from 1980 to 2005, assessments were made on the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment.The selections and assessments were performed independently by two researchers, and adjustment of the differences were done by a thirdparty researcher.In addition, the factors that may affect the quality levels were analyzed.Results: Twenty-three trials were included.In 1980s, there were only 1.09% of the total original articles, but in 2000s, 2.63% were RCTs.The mean total Jadad score increased from 1 point in 1980s to 2.17 in 2000s, and the "good quality" trials also increased from 0% to 33.33%.As for the adequate allocation concealment, however, only two studies were observed in 2000s.The most lacking aspect was the appropriate double-blinding.Also, studies intervened by medicine or funded or examined by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) tended to receive higher quality assessments. Conclusion:Although RCTs consistently increased in quantity and quality, in future studies, researchers should continue to strive towards achieving adequate allocation concealment and appropriate double-blinding.In addition, researchers must become more interested in receiving funds and examination by IRBs.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.