A Quality Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials about Erectile Dysfunction.
10.5534/wjmh.2013.31.2.157
- Author:
Jae Hoon CHUNG
1
;
Jeong Woo LEE
;
Jung Ki JO
;
Kyu Shik KIM
;
Seung Wook LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. swleepark@hanyang.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Clinical Trial ; Journal Article ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Randomized controlled trial;
Journal article;
Erectile dysfunction
- MeSH:
Bias (Epidemiology);
Erectile Dysfunction;
Korea;
Male;
Random Allocation
- From:The World Journal of Men's Health
2013;31(2):157-162
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: A low quality clinical trial could produce errors, and these errors could, in turn, distort the results of the clinical trial. To avoid applying distorted results of trials clinically, a quality analysis of clinical trials is needed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about erectile dysfunction (ED) conducted in Korea using Medline and KoreaMed. Quality assessment of selected RCTs was performed using three assessment tools (Jadad scales, van Tulder scale, Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool [CCRBT]). RESULTS: The first RCT about ED conducted in Korea was published in 2002. Since 2002, a total of 20 RCTs have been published in medical journals. Among the 20 articles, only 1 article was found to have a low risk of bias according to the CCRBT. On the Jadad scale, there were 17 high quality articles, while 19 articles were assessed as high quality by the VTS. Only 2 RCTs described the randomization method adequately. Only 1 RCT presented allocation concealment. CONCLUSIONS: A low quality clinical trial could produce errors, and these errors could, in turn, distort the results of the clinical trial. To avoid applying distorted results of trials clinically, a quality analysis of clinical trials is needed. The quality of RCTs was found to be high because almost all of the selected RCTs were double blinded studies. However, the quality of RCTs was inadequate with regard to the lack of randomization and absence of allocation concealment. Therefore, performing adequate randomization and adding a description of the appropriate concealment of allocation may improve the quality of RCTs.
