Luke T Lavallée1, Dean Fergusson, Rodney H Breau. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Ottawa University Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the current and future role of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in urology. METHODS: A review of the urological literature was performed to assess the current role of RCTs in urology. These findings were put in context of current practice, and methodologic limitations of observational study design were discussed. RESULTS: Several RCTs have improved treatment of urology patients. However, overall, few studies in the urologic literature convey high-level evidence. RCTs represent the only study design that can assess causality, thus are the only means to significantly advance knowledge about therapy and improve patient care. Increased incidence and improved quality of RCTs may be achieved through education, community outreach, and better access to research infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs have significantly improved urologic practice. RCTs are superior to observational studies because of decreased risk of bias and confounding. To further advance clinical practice, clinical trials must play a predominant role and should be embraced by the urology community.
PURPOSE: To review the current and future role of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in urology. METHODS: A review of the urological literature was performed to assess the current role of RCTs in urology. These findings were put in context of current practice, and methodologic limitations of observational study design were discussed. RESULTS: Several RCTs have improved treatment of urology patients. However, overall, few studies in the urologic literature convey high-level evidence. RCTs represent the only study design that can assess causality, thus are the only means to significantly advance knowledge about therapy and improve patient care. Increased incidence and improved quality of RCTs may be achieved through education, community outreach, and better access to research infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs have significantly improved urologic practice. RCTs are superior to observational studies because of decreased risk of bias and confounding. To further advance clinical practice, clinical trials must play a predominant role and should be embraced by the urology community.
Authors: Philipp Dahm; Glenn M Preminger; Charles D Scales; Susan F Fesperman; Lawrence L Yeung; Marc S Cohen Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; David G Bostwick; Otis W Brawley; Leonard G Gomella; Michael Marberger; Francesco Montorsi; Curtis A Pettaway; Teuvo L Tammela; Claudio Teloken; Donald J Tindall; Matthew C Somerville; Timothy H Wilson; Ivy L Fowler; Roger S Rittmaster Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K Yoshizawa; W C Willett; S J Morris; M J Stampfer; D Spiegelman; E B Rimm; E Giovannucci Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1998-08-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: E Dawn Flick; Laurel A Habel; K Arnold Chan; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Virginia P Quinn; Reina Haque; Endel J Orav; John D Seeger; Marianne C Sadler; Charles P Quesenberry; Barbara Sternfeld; Steven J Jacobsen; Rachel A Whitmer; Bette J Caan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-10-30 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel A Barocas; Vivien Chen; Matthew Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; John J Graff; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann Hamilton; Karen Hoffman; Sherrie Kaplan; Tatsuki Koyama; Alicia Morgans; Lisa E Paddock; Sharon Phillips; Matthew J Resnick; Antoinette Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; David F Penson Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.744