Randomized clinical trials presented at the World Congress of Endourology: how is the quality of reporting?

Safety of Medical Cannabis in Neuropathic Chronic Pain Management

Products derived from the plant Cannabis sativa are widely appreciated for their analgesic properties and are employed for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Only nabiximols, a product composed of two extracts containing similar percentages of the two cannabinoids cannabidiol and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is approved by regulatory authorities for neuropathic pain and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis in many European countries and Canada. It is also included in pharmacovigilance systems monitoring the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. However, it is not the same for the great variety of other cannabis preparations widely used for medical purposes. This creates a situation characterized by insufficient knowledge of the safety of cannabis preparations and the impossibility of establishing a correct risk–benefit profile for their medical use in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. With the aim to explore this issue more deeply, we collected data on adverse reactions from published clinical studies reporting the use of cannabis for neuropathic relief.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials related to implant dentistry

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of scientific articles should be accurate and detailed in summarizing the information in the full-text because they are the first article section the reader examines. This study assessed the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts related to implant dentistry and examined associations between reporting quality and study characteristics.

METHODS

On the 17th of January 2021, we searched the PubMed database for abstracts of RCTs published in high-ranked periodontology and implant dentistry journals from 2016 to 2021. For each abstract, we assessed if the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist items were reported completely, partially, or not reported. An Overall CONSORT Score (OCS) and relative score (OCS%) were calculated as a proxy to checklist adherance. Linear regression models were fitted to analyze associations between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting.

RESULTS

Four-hundred and thirty four of the 678 retrieved abstracts were eligible for inclusion. The mean OCS and OCS% were 6,23 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.56) or 41.5% (SD = 10.4), respectively. Items most frequently reported included the title (n = 434; 100%), intended intervention (n = 425; 98%) and conclusions (n = 430; 99%). Participant allocation, blinding, and trial registration were rarely completely reported with frequencies of 2%, 3% and 4%, respectively. We found that number of authors, continent, type of RCT, number of centers, report of ethical approval, funding, structure and length of the abstract were associated with better abstract reporting.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of abstracts in RCTs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal. Journals should start to incorporate and endorse the use of the CONSORT-A guidelines in their instructions to authors to enhance reporting quality. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Analysis of conference abstracts of prosthodontic randomised-controlled trials presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015): a cross-sectional study of the relationship between demographic characteristics, reporting quality and final publication

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the relationship between demographic characteristics, reporting quality and final publication rate of conference abstracts of prosthodontic randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) presented at International Association for Dental Research (IADR) general sessions (2002-2015).

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study on conference abstracts.

METHODS

Conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015) were obtained. Literature search was performed in multiple databases to confirm the final publication status of conference abstracts. Two investigators independently extracted the data including conference date, origin, presentation type, exact p value, number of centres, institution type, overall conclusion, subspecialty, publication time and journal. The reporting quality of abstracts was assessed by two investigators according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. The relationship between demographic characteristics, reporting quality and final publication was analysed by χ² test.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Final publication rate, demographic characteristics and reporting quality of conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015).

RESULTS

Of the 340 prosthodontic RCT abstracts, 43.24% were published. The mean time to final publication was 22.86 months. Europe contributed the most number of abstracts but Asia and Australia had the highest publication rate. Oral presentation, multicentre trial and complete denture and overdenture subspecialty were associated with a higher publication rate. Reporting quality of eligibility criteria of participants, random assignment and primary outcome results for each group correlated with a higher final publication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015) were unpublished. Oral presentation and multiple centres were associated with higher publication rates. Abstracts' reporting quality addressing participant recruitment, assignment and primary results correlated with trials' validity and applicability. Conference attendees may refer to this research to identify valid and applicable prosthodontic trials but should treat and apply results cautiously.

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the reporting quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at a leading international conference in sleep medicine (the SLEEP Annual Meeting), and to investigate the association between potential predictors and the reporting quality of trial abstracts in this field.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, research on research study.

METHODS

A handsearch of the 2016-2018 SLEEP Annual Meeting abstract books was carried out to identify abstracts describing RCTs. Quality of reporting was assessed with the original 17-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of reporting quality. In addition, risk ratios were used to analyse the adequate reporting rate of each quality item by type of intervention and funding status.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The overall quality score (OQS, range 0-17) in accordance with the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (primary outcome), and the adequate reporting rate of each checklist item (secondary outcome).

RESULTS

A total of 176 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean OQS was 5.53 (95% CI 5.30 to 5.76). Only three quality items (objective, conclusions and funding) were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75%). None of the abstracts adequately reported authors, randomisation or outcome in the results section. According to the multivariable analysis, pharmacological interventions (p=0.018) and funding from the industry (p=0.025) were significantly associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at SLEEP Annual Meetings was suboptimal. Pharmacological intervention and funding from industry were significant predictors of better reporting quality. Joint efforts by authors and conference committees are needed to enhance the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at sleep medicine conferences, and thereby reduce relevant research waste in this field.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Combining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries may be underrepresented in the scientific literature. After the considerable work involved in adding in the more than 300 additional studies found by the February 2016 searches, we chose not to update the search again because additional searches are unlikely to change these overall conclusions in any important way.

Quality improvement in randomized controlled trial abstracts in prosthodontics since the publication of CONSORT guideline for abstracts: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in prosthodontics before and after the publication of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline for abstracts and identify the characteristics associated with better reporting quality.

SOURCES

PubMed was searched for RCT abstracts published from 2001 to 2007 (pre-CONSORT period) and from 2010 to 2016 (post-CONSORT period) in six leading prosthodontic journals.

STUDY SELECTION

After applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 131 RCT abstracts were selected. The t test was performed to compare the overall quality between the two periods. Univariable and multivariable linear regressions were used to identify any factors relating to the reporting quality. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.

DATA

The investigators extracted data and scored the abstracts independently based on CONSORT. The mean overall CONSORT score was 5.20 and 6.11 in the pre- and post-CONSORT samples, respectively. Significant changes were observed in reporting for only three items: title, conclusions, and trial registration. Most abstracts adequately reported interventions, objectives, and conclusions (>90%), but failed to report recruitment and outcome in the results section (<3%). Funding was not reported in both periods. The reporting quality was related to a higher impact factor, structured format, and published after CONSORT.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of RCT abstracts in prosthodontics improved over time, but adherence to the CONSORT guideline for abstracts was still suboptimal.

Improved Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Urologic Literature

BACKGROUND

Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have the potential to provide high-quality evidence to inform questions of therapy and prevention, but this potential is contingent on the use of appropriate methods and transparent reporting.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the quality of urology RCT reporting and identify trends over time.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

All RCTs published in four leading urology journals in 2013 were identified and compared to a prior analysis of studies from 1996 and 2004. Two reviewers abstracted data based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A summary reporting score (range: 0-22) for each study was determined. Mean overall scores for 1996, 2004, and 2013 were compared using analysis of variance. We used χ² to compare the reporting frequency of individual criteria.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Mean CONSORT scores for RCTs were 15.6±2.0 in 2013 (n=82), 12.0±0.3 in 2004 (n=87), and 10.2±0.3 in 1996 (n=65); p<0.01. Key deficiencies remain in reporting methods of allocation concealment and group assignment (selection bias), and blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors (performance and detection bias). Study limitations are potential reviewer bias resulting from lack of journal deidentification and the relatively low number of studies reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a substantial improvement in reporting quality of RCTs in urology since CONSORT. Some methodological criteria remain underreported, and increased efforts are necessary to further this improvement.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Treatment decisions are often based on data from randomized controlled trials. We looked at whether these trials in urology are transparent in reporting their design and conduct using a framework known as the CONSORT criteria and found significant improvements over time. Some areas of deficiency remain, and our paper aimed to highlight these drawbacks to promote continued high-quality research.

Publication rates of full-text journal articles converted from abstracts presented during the 22(nd) Turkish National Urology Congress

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the publication rates of full-text journal articles converted from the abstracts presented in the 22(nd) Turkish National Urology Congress in 2012.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 576 abstracts accepted for presentation at the 22(nd) Turkish National Urology Association Meeting were identified from the published abstract book. The abstracts were categorized into subsections such as endourology and pediatric urology. The subsequent publication rate for the studies was evaluated by scanning PubMed Medline. Abstracts published before the proceedings were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

The abstracts were categorized as being presented orally (n=155), by poster (n=421), or by video (n=78). Of the 28 (18.3%) of 155 oral and 34 (8.15%) of 421 poster presentations, were subsequently published in several journals until March 2015. The publication rates of the abstracts based on urology subsections were as follows: neurology (25%), andrology (18.6%), endourology (17.2%), urolithiasis (15.3%), general urology (12.5%), infectious diseases (7.14%), pediatric urology (6.25%), uro-gynecology (6.06%), reconstructive urology (5.8%), and urooncology (3.8%). The average time to publication was 11.77 (0-33) months.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study assessing the publication rates of abstracts presented at a Turkish National Urology Congress. It reveals that more qualified randomized studies need to be done to improve the rate of publication.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses, investigate any improvement after the release of CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) for Abstracts guidelines, and identify factors associated with reporting quality.

METHODS

Abstract books of the 2003-07 (Pre-CONSORT period) and 2010-14 (Post-CONSORT period) EOS congresses were obtained from the official website of European Journal of Orthodontics. A hand-search was conducted to identify RCTs. Reporting quality was assessed and scored using the original 17-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Risk ratio and the t-test were used to compare the adequate reporting rate of each item and the overall quality in two periods, respectively. Univariate and multivariate regressions were used to identify predictors of reporting quality.

RESULTS

A total of 138 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean overall CONSORT score was 4.10 (SD: 1.32) and 4.48 (1.31) in the Pre- and Post-CONSORT samples, respectively [P = 0.099; mean difference, -0.39 (95% CI: -0.84, 0.07)]. Only three CONSORT items ('objective', 'interventions', and 'conclusions') were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75 per cent). No abstract provided information regarding the corresponding author, trial registration, and source of funding. Less than 1.5 per cent of the included abstracts sufficiently reported 'randomization', 'recruitment', and 'outcome in the results section'. In the multivariate analysis, greater word count (P = 0.036) and provision of the exact P value (P = 0.006) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.

LIMITATIONS

Our final regression model can explain only about 8 per cent of the variance of reporting quality. Other predictors not included in this study may be investigated in analogous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at EOS congresses was suboptimal. Joint efforts by authors and conference committees to improve reporting are needed.

An assessment on the quality of abstracts presented at the British Association of Urological Surgeons annual meeting

Objectives:

To assess the quality of abstracts presented at the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) annual meeting using standardized reporting guidelines and examine whether abstract quality is associated with conversion to full-text publication.

Materials and methods:

Two standardized assessment forms based on CONSORT/STROBE guidelines were used to score abstracts from the 2009 BAUS meeting retrospectively. A high score ratio was defined as >50% of criteria. Kaplan–Meier analysis examined effect of score ratio on time to publication; logistic regression examined predictive potential of variables including; session topic, study design, country of origin and number of institutions to high score ratio and the effects the above factors and a high score ratio on the likelihood of full-text publication.

Results:

In total, 127 abstracts were included. The mean score ratio was 63.6% (SD 13.3%) for observational studies and 62.7% (SD 9.5%) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Nine RCT abstracts and 91 non-RCT abstracts achieved a high score ratio. Abstract topic, study design, country of origin and number of institutions did not predict a high score ratio or subsequent full-length publication using multivariate logistic regression. Full-length publication was achieved for 43 (33.9%) abstracts. Mean time to publication was 17.2 months. Abstract quality did not predict time to publication ( p=0.706).

Conclusion:

BAUS abstracts are of high quality, and compare favourably with other urological meetings. While abstract quality does not independently predict full-length publication, most abstracts do not progress to full-length publication and thus we advocate the use of standardized reporting guidelines to ensure accurate interpretation of study methodology and results.

Randomized controlled trials in endourology: a quality assessment

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 (2006-2011) 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.

Presentation of research in anesthesia: Culmination into publication?

Background:

To assess the quality of research presentations made in conferences, its success or failure to be published in a peer-reviewed journal is a well-accepted marker. However, there is no data regarding the publication of research presentations made in Indian conferences of anesthesiology.

Objective:

The primary objective was to determine publication rate of research presented at the largest and best attended national conference in anesthesiology, the Indian Society of Anaesthesiologists’ Conference (ISACON), and also compare it with the rate from an international conference American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA annual meeting) held in the same year.

Materials and Methods:

All 363 abstracts presented as poster or podium presentations at the ISACON, and an equal number of randomly selected abstracts presented at ASA annual meeting were searched on Pubmed and Google Scholar for their full-text publications in peer-reviewed journals using a standardized search strategy. As secondary observations, abstracts were assessed for completeness by noting certain components central to research methodology. Also, changes between abstract of the presentation and published paper were noted with respect to certain components.

Results:

The publication rate of presentations at ISACON and ASA meetings was 5% and 22%, respectively. The abstracts from ISACON lacked central components of research such as methods and statistical tests. The commonest change in the full-text publications as compared with the original abstract from both conferences was a change in authorship.

Conclusion:

Steps are required to augment full-text publication of Indian research, including a more rigorous peer review of abstracts submitted to ISACON to ensure their completeness.

Assessing the quality of randomized controlled urological trials conducted by korean medical institutions

PURPOSE

To assess the quality of randomized controlled urological trials conducted by Korean medical institutions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quality assessment was conducted by using the Jadad scale; in addition, the van Tulder scale and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool were used as individual indices. All assessments were performed by two reviewers. If the outcomes differed, the two reviewers and a third reviewer adjusted the discrepancy in the results through discussion. Starting from 1986, a quality analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in 1-year and 5-year units. The quality assessment was conducted by subject, type of intervention, presence of double blinding, presence of funding, and review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

RESULTS

Whereas the number of RCTs published has gradually increased, there was no significant difference in the quality of the RCTs according to publication year. Drug studies, double-blind studies, studies with funding, and studies reviewed by IRBs had higher quality scores and a higher percentage of high-quality RCTs than did other studies. Thirty-six RCTs were published in journals included in the Science Citation Index and 20 RCTs were published in journals included in the Science Citation Index Expanded. The largest number of RCTs (32.32%) were published by the Korean Journal of Urology.

CONCLUSIONS

A quantitative increase was observed in RCTs over time, but no qualitative improvement in the RCTs was observed. It seems necessary to put effort into the quality improvement of RCTs at the design stage.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at five national pharmacy association meetings

BACKGROUND

Abstract presentations at professional meetings provide a medium for disseminating the findings of scholarly activity. Rates of abstract publication from various biomedical disciplines have been evaluated, with pharmacy noted to be lower than other specialties. Previous research on pharmacy abstract publication rates was conducted for a limited number of professional meetings but has not been assessed using Google Scholar.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the full publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2005 American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Spring and Annual Meetings, American Pharmacists Association (APhA) Annual Meeting, and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Summer and Midyear Clinical Meetings.

METHODS

Publication status was assessed for abstracts presented during the 2005 ACCP Spring and Annual Meetings, APhA Annual Meeting, and ASHP Summer and Midyear Clinical Meetings using PubMed and Google Scholar. Data collected included abstract category, study category, practice site, database(s) in which publication appeared, time in months to publication, publication type, and journal of publication.

RESULTS

Evaluation of 2,000 abstracts presented in 2005 revealed an overall full publication rate of 19.8% (n = 384). Nearly all pharmacy abstracts were published as manuscripts (98.4%; n=378) and indexed in PubMed and Google Scholar (91.9%; n = 353), although a significant percentage were indexed in Google Scholar only (7.8%; n = 30). The mean time to full publication was 16.8 months (SD ±11.9 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Results were consistent with previously reported full publication rates of abstracts from pharmacy association meetings, indicating that abstracts presented at pharmacy meetings continue to have a lower full publication rate than other health disciplines.

Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials published in the Journal of Korean Medical Science from 1986 to 2011

Low quality clinical trials have a possibility to have errors in the process of deriving the results and therefore distort the study. Quality assessment of clinical trial is necessary in order to prevent any clinical application erroneous results is important. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) is a design for evaluate the effectiveness of medical procedure. This study was conducted by extracting the RCTs from the original articles published in the Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS) from 1986 to 2011 and conducting a qualitative analysis using three types of analysis tools: Jadad scale, van Tulder scale and Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias Tool. To compare the quality of articles of JKMS, quality analysis of the RCTs published in Yonsei Medical Journal (YMJ) and Korean Journal of Internal Medicine was also conducted. In the JKMS, YMJ and Korean Journal of Internal Medicine, the quantitative increase of RCT presented over time was observed but no qualitative improvement of RCT was observed over time. From the results of this study, it is required for the researchers to plan for and perform higher quality studies.

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials published in the korean journal of urology over the past 20 years

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.