Quantity and Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Five Korean Medical Journals, from 1980 to 2000.
- Author:
Suk Won KIM
1
;
Youn Seon CHOI
;
Hyung Sik AHN
;
Hoi Young LEE
;
Duck Sun AHN
;
Young Mee LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Clinical Trial ; Original Article
- Keywords:
evidence-based medicine;
randomized controlled trial;
quantity;
quality
- MeSH:
Clinical Medicine;
Evidence-Based Medicine;
Humans;
Publications;
Research Design
- From:Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine
2004;25(2):118-125
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: As evidence-based medicine is getting popular recently, the importance of randomized controlled trial as a research methodology is also getting highlighted. This study was conducted in order to identify the status quo of randomized controlled trial research in major domestic journals and to provide baseline data for constructing Korean clinical trial database such CCTR (Cochrane Clinical Trial Registry). METHODS: Five journals issued by domestic publication industry were selected, out of which 127,560 original articles, equal to 253 volumes, were investigated. The author extracted the articles, which performed prospective clinical trial, targeting human beings. The selected papers were analyzed with experts to single out randomized controlled trial among them. Furthermore, the quality of the re-selected ones were assessed according to Jadad Quaility Assessment Scale. RESULTS: After analysis, it turned out that the number of papers adopting prospective clinical trial were 406 volumes (3.2%) of 12,760 and that they increased from 157 in 1980s to 224 in 1990s. However, the percentage of prospective clinical trial monographs, introduced during 1980s and 1990s, remained 2.0 to 4.0. The number of randomized controlled trial-based papers were 115, accounting for 0.9% of total articles. The number of RCT increased to approximately two fold from 1980s to 1990s. Quality analysis showed that among a total of 115 RCT papers, those of scoring 1 and 3 were 16 (13.9%), 82 articles obtained score 2 (72.2%). There was no papers, which won the marks of 4 and 5. CONCLUSION: It was found that domestic randomized controlled trial research was weak both in number and quality. Therefore, it is necessary to activate clinical medicine study with good quality to upgrade the amount and quality of monographs.
