Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Quality of randomized controlled trials published in the International Urogynecology Journal 2007-2016.
Kim, Kyu Shik; Chung, Jae Hoon; Jo, Jung Ki; Kim, Jae Heon; Kim, Seungjun; Cho, Jeoung Man; Cho, Hee Ju; Choi, Hong Yong; Lee, Seung Wook.
Afiliação
  • Kim KS; Department of Urology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
  • Chung JH; Department of Urology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
  • Jo JK; Department of Urology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
  • Kim JH; Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
  • Kim S; The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
  • Cho JM; Department of Urology, Eulji general hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
  • Cho HJ; Department of Urology, Eulji general hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
  • Choi HY; Department of Urology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
  • Lee SW; Department of Urology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. swleepark@hanyang.ac.kr.
Int Urogynecol J ; 29(7): 1011-1017, 2018 07.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28884346
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND

HYPOTHESIS:

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best quality clinical evidence. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of RCTs published by the International Urogynecology Journal (IUJ) in 2007-2016.

METHODS:

RCTs in original articles were extracted from PubMed and IUJ homepage. Change in RCT quality over time was assessed with Jadad and van Tulder scales and Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool (CCRBT). Jadad scores of 3-5 or van Tulder scores of >5 indicated high-quality RCTs. The effect on RCT quality of including funding source and institutional review board (IRB) approval statements and describing the intervention was assessed. In addition, changes in RCT topics over time were assessed.

RESULTS:

Annual RCT frequencies did not change significantly (6.7-15.7%) 36.1% and 25.7% described blinding and allocation concealment, respectively. Both tended to increase between 2013 and 2016, particularly 2013 and 2014. Funding statement inclusion (39.1% overall) and intervention description (78.2% overall) tended to increase steadily. IRB statement inclusion (60.4% overall) increased significantly (p < 0.01). Jadad scores and van Tulder rose significantly until 2014 (p < 0.01). Frequencies of high-quality RCTs tended to rise. CCRBT indicated that RCTs with a low risk of bias tended to increase until 2014. However, from 2015, Jadad scores, van Tulder, and CCRBT the low risk tended to decreased. RCTs with funding and IRB approval statements had higher Jadad and van Tulder scores than unfunded RCTs (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). Intervention description did not associate with better quality.

CONCLUSIONS:

RCT quality improved over time, but a dip in quality was observed in 2015-2016 because of decreased blinding and allocation concealment.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Publicações Periódicas como Assunto / Editoração / Urologia / Bibliometria / Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto / Ginecologia Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Publicações Periódicas como Assunto / Editoração / Urologia / Bibliometria / Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto / Ginecologia Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article