Randomized Controlled Trials in the Journal of Sexual Medicine : A Quality Assessment and Relevant Clinical Impact

Determinants of societal and academic recognition: Evidence from randomised controlled trials

Given the increasing importance of recognition in academia and the vital role of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in medical research and clinical decisions, this study verifies how RCTs’ academic and societal impacts are affected by visibility factors, subjects and methodological validity. This study concentrated on a sample of 446 RCTs indexed in Scopus and evaluated by Cochrane reviewers in terms of their methodological validity. The altmetrics, bibliometric and bibliographical information were extracted from Altmetric.com and Scopus, and the contributing countries’ development ranks were obtained from the United Nations Development report. The linear regression analyses revealed that citations and altmetrics depend on some subjects. They are also affected by publication year and journals’ previous reputation. Citations are also affected by keyword counts and reference counts. Keyword counts and contributing countries’ developmental rank also predict the tweet counts. While none of the methodological validity dimensions were found to predict citations, ‘Incomplete Outcome Data’ and ‘Random Sequence Generation’ significantly, though slightly, affect Mendeley Readership and tweets, respectively. By confirming the dependence of RCTs’ recognition on some methodological validity features and attention-inducing characteristics, the study provides further evidence on the interaction of quality and visibility dynamisms in the recognition network and the complementary role of societal mentions for academic citation.

Quality Assessment and Relevant Clinical Impact of Randomized Controlled Trials of Varicocele: Next Step to Good-Quality Randomized Controlled Trial of Varicocele Treatment

Purpose

To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on varicocele published from 1979 to 2017.

Materials and Methods

We searched for original RCT on varicocele published between 1979 and 2017. Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool were used to analyze RCT quality over time. Effects on RCT quality including funding source, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, and intervention were assessed. Treatment parameters of varicocele were also analyzed.

Results

Blinding and allocation concealment were described in 25.9% and 9.4% of RCT, respectively. Both tended to increase and a sharp dip in allocation concealment was observed in 2010–2017. Jadad scores increased steadily from 1979 to 2017 (1.28±0.59 to 2.19±1.10, p<0.01). Van Tulder scores tended to increase from 1979 to 2017 (4.21±0.94 to 5.58±1.58, p<0.01). RCTs with funding statements had higher Jadad (Yes vs. No, 3.25±0.50 vs. 1.70±0.97; p<0.01) and van Tulder (Yes vs. No, 7.25±1.26 vs. 4.81±1.26; p<0.01) scores than unfunded RCTs. IRB approval and intervention were associated with better quality.

Conclusions

The number of RCTs on varicocele increased from 1979 to 2017. Also, quality improved over time with increasing IRB approval, funding, and multicenter trial. Most RCTs on varicocele reported the use of surgical treatment. RCTs of surgical treatments have limitations to satisfy the condition of RCT to conduct, but their quality has improved over time.

Altmetrics Attention Scores for Randomized Controlled Trials in Total Joint Arthroplasty Are Reflective of High Scientific Quality: An Altmetrics-Based Methodological Quality and Bias Analysis

The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) has been associated with citation rates across medical and surgical disciplines. However, factors that drive high AAS remain poorly understood and there remains multiple pitfalls to correlating these metrics alone with the quality of a study. The purpose of the current study was to determine the relationship between methodologic and study biases and the AAS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in total joint arthroplasty journals.