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

Joo Yong Lee · Jae Hoon Chung · Dong Hyuk Kang · Jung Woo Lee · Hong Sang Moon · Tag Keun Yoo +2 more

12 citations0/0 files storedKorean journal of urology

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: Because low-quality trials may lead to erroneous conclusions, quality assessments are necessary. Thus, in this study, we scrutinized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the Korean Journal of Urology (KJU) to assess their quantity and quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Upon extracting RCTs from all articles published in the KJU from 1991 to 2010, assessments were made on the basis of the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment. The selections and assessments were performed independently by two researchers, and adjustment of the differences was done by a third-party researcher. In addition, the factors that may affect quality were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 3,516 original articles were searched and 28 RCTs were extracted. In the 1990s, RCTs constituted only 0.27% of the total original articles, but in the 2000s, RCTs constituted 1.34%. The mean total Jadad score increased from 1.6 points in the 1990s to 1.65 points in the 2000s. However, the percentage of "good quality" trials also increased from 20% to 30.43%. As for adequate allocation concealment, one study was observed in the 2000s. The aspect most lacking was appropriate dropout and double-blinding. Studies with medical interventions or funded or examined by institutional review boards tended to receive higher quality assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Although RCTs consistently increased in both quantity and quality, in future studies, researchers should continue to strive toward achieving adequate allocation concealment and appropriate double-blinding. In addition, researchers must become more interested in receiving external funding and undergoing examination by institutional review boards.

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?1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?2000Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context 2001Systematic Reviews in Health Care 1996Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials:Current Issues and Future Directions 1999Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses.2009Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study 1999'Early warning systems' for identifying new healthcare technologies.

Cited by

2013A Quality Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials about Erectile Dysfunction 2016Quality analysis of randomized controlled trials in the International Journal of Impotence Research: quality assessment and relevant clinical impact

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.