Literature DB >> 27904149

Quality analysis of randomized controlled trials in the International Journal of Impotence Research: quality assessment and relevant clinical impact.

K S Kim1, J K Jo2, J H Chung3, J H Kim4, H Y Choi1, S W Lee1.   

Abstract

The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in the International Journal of Impotence Research (IJIR) was analyzed. The original articles that reported RCTs and were published in the IJIR in 1997-2014 were identified by PubMed. Their methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The review period was divided into three periods: early (1997-2002), mid (2003-2008) and late (2009-2014). The effect of study subject and presence of Institutional Review Board approval, intervention, funding and adequate allocation concealment on RCT quality was assessed. The frequency of RCT publication in the IJIR did not change over the 19-year study period. Numbers of low risk of bias articles were 1 (3.0%), 2 (4.4%) and 4 (12.1%) in the early, mid and late periods in Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (P=0.04). High-quality low risk of bias RCT publication frequency increased over time. Intervention and funding significantly influenced RCT quality. Thus, the number of RCTs published in the IJIR over time has remained constant while their quality has improved. Ongoing efforts to expand the numbers of RCTs and further improve the quality of research published by the IJIR will improve clinical practice.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27904149     DOI: 10.1038/ijir.2016.48

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Impot Res        ISSN: 0955-9930            Impact factor:   2.896


  23 in total

Review 1.  CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

Authors:  David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 6.071

2.  Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-05-07

3.  A critical assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in the urology literature.

Authors:  Charles D Scales; Regina D Norris; Sheri A Keitz; Bercedis L Peterson; Glenn M Preminger; Johannes Vieweg; Philipp Dahm
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Quality of reports on randomized controlled trials conducted in Japan: evaluation of adherence to the CONSORT statement.

Authors:  Kae Uetani; Takeo Nakayama; Hiroshi Ikai; Naohiro Yonemoto; David Moher
Journal:  Intern Med       Date:  2009-03-02       Impact factor: 1.271

5.  Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials published in neurourology and urodynamics from 1993 to 2012.

Authors:  Jeong Woo Lee; Jae Hoon Chung; Jung Ki Jo; Seung Wook Lee
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 2.696

6.  Evidence based general practice: a retrospective study of interventions in one training practice.

Authors:  P Gill; A C Dowell; R D Neal; N Smith; P Heywood; A E Wilson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-03-30

7.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

Authors:  K F Schulz; I Chalmers; R J Hayes; D G Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials.

Authors:  T C Chalmers; P Celano; H S Sacks; H Smith
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1983-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Jackson; Malathi Srinivasan; Joanna Rea; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Richard L Kravitz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-07-25       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study.

Authors:  Tammy J Clifford; Nicholas J Barrowman; David Moher
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-09-04       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  5 in total

1.  No differences in the efficacy among various core decompression modalities and non-operative treatment: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Byung-Ho Yoon; Young-Kyun Lee; Ki-Choul Kim; Yong-Chan Ha; Kyung-Hoi Koo
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review.

Authors:  Yongil Cho; Changsun Kim; Bossng Kang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-05-05       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Synbiotics for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a probiotics strain-specific network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qiong-Li Fan; Xiu-Mei Yu; Quan-Xing Liu; Wang Yang; Qin Chang; Yu-Ping Zhang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 1.671

4.  The effectiveness of diabetes self-management education (DSME) on glycemic control among T2DM patients randomized control trial: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Authors:  Bayu Begashaw Bekele; Samuel Negash; Biruk Bogale; Melkamsew Tesfaye; Dawit Getachew; Fekede Weldekidan; Behailu Balcha
Journal:  J Diabetes Metab Disord       Date:  2020-07-11

5.  Quality Assessment and Relevant Clinical Impact of Randomized Controlled Trials of Varicocele: Next Step to Good-Quality Randomized Controlled Trial of Varicocele Treatment.

Authors:  Kyu Shik Kim; Jae Hoon Chung; Hyung Joon Park; Woo Jong Shin; Bum Hyun Lee; Seung Wook Lee
Journal:  World J Mens Health       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 5.400

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.