Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in the Korean Journal of Urology Over the Past 20 Years.
10.4111/kju.2011.52.9.642
- Author:
Joo Yong LEE
1
;
Jae Hoon CHUNG
;
Dong Hyuk KANG
;
Jung Woo LEE
;
Hong Sang MOON
;
Tag Keun YOO
;
Hong Yong CHOI
;
Seung Wook LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. swleepark@hanyang.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Korea;
Prospective studies;
Random allocation;
Urology
- MeSH:
Ethics Committees, Research;
Financial Management;
Humans;
Korea;
Patient Dropouts;
Prospective Studies;
Random Allocation;
Urology
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2011;52(9):642-646
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Because low-quality trials may lead to erroneous conclusions, quality assessments are necessary. Thus, in this study, we scrutinized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the Korean Journal of Urology (KJU) to assess their quantity and quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Upon extracting RCTs from all articles published in the KJU from 1991 to 2010, assessments were made on the basis of the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment. The selections and assessments were performed independently by two researchers, and adjustment of the differences was done by a third-party researcher. In addition, the factors that may affect quality were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 3,516 original articles were searched and 28 RCTs were extracted. In the 1990s, RCTs constituted only 0.27% of the total original articles, but in the 2000s, RCTs constituted 1.34%. The mean total Jadad score increased from 1.6 points in the 1990s to 1.65 points in the 2000s. However, the percentage of "good quality" trials also increased from 20% to 30.43%. As for adequate allocation concealment, one study was observed in the 2000s. The aspect most lacking was appropriate dropout and double-blinding. Studies with medical interventions or funded or examined by institutional review boards tended to receive higher quality assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Although RCTs consistently increased in both quantity and quality, in future studies, researchers should continue to strive toward achieving adequate allocation concealment and appropriate double-blinding. In addition, researchers must become more interested in receiving external funding and undergoing examination by institutional review boards.
