Randomized Controlled Trials In Endourology: A Quality Assessment
- Authors
- Jo, Jung Ki; Autorino, Riccardo; Chung, Jae Hoon; Kim, Kyu Shik; Lee, Jeong Woo; Baek, Eun Jung; Lee, Seung Wook
- Issue Date
- Aug-2013
- Publisher
- MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
- Citation
- JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, v.27, no.8, pp.1055 - 1060
- Indexed
- SCIE
SCOPUS
- Journal Title
- JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY
- Volume
- 27
- Number
- 8
- Start Page
- 1055
- End Page
- 1060
- URI
- https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/162302
- DOI
- 10.1089/end.2013.0036
- ISSN
- 0892-7790
- Abstract
- Purpose: To analyze the quality of studies reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of endourology. Materials and Methods: RCTs published in the Journal of Endourology from 1993 until 2011 were identified. The Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT) were used to assess the quality of the studies. The review period was divided into early (1993-1999), mid (2000-2005), and late (20062011) terms. Studies were categorized by country of origin, subject matter, single-vs multicenter setting, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and funding support, and blinding vs nonblinding. Results: In total, 3339 articles had been published during the defined review period, of which 165 articles were reporting a RCT. There was a significant increase in the number of RCTs published over time, with 18 (2.81%), 43 (4.88%), and 104 (5.72%) studies identified in the early, mid, and late term, respectively (P = 0.009). Nevertheless, there was no difference in terms of quality of reporting, as assessed with the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, or CCRBT, between the three study terms. On the other hand, significant differences were found in both the number of high qualitative RCTs that used blinding methodology and those that had IRB review, when comparing the early, mid, and late terms. Conclusion: There has been a growing number of Journal of Endourology publications reporting on RTC over the last two decades. The quality of reporting for these studies remains suboptimal, however. Researchers should focus on a more appropriate description of key features of any given RCT, such as randomization and allocation methods, as well as disclosure of IRB review and financial support.
- Files in This Item
-
Go to Link
- Appears in
Collections - 서울 의과대학 > 서울 비뇨의학교실 > 1. Journal Articles
- 서울 의과대학 > 서울 진단검사의학교실 > 1. Journal Articles
![qrcode](https://api.qrserver.com/v1/create-qr-code/?size=55x55&data=https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/162302)
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.