Corresponding Author: Seung Wook Lee, MD, Department of Urology, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, 249-1, Gyomun-dong, Guri 471-701, Korea. Tel: +82-31-560-2374; Fax: +82-31-560-2372; E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Jung Ki Jo MD,

Jung Ki Jo MD

Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

Search for more papers by this author

Jae Hoon Chung MD,

Jae Hoon Chung MD

Department of Urology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Search for more papers by this author

Kyu Shik Kim MD,

Kyu Shik Kim MD

Department of Urology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Search for more papers by this author

Soo Hyun Song PhD,

Soo Hyun Song PhD

Comparative Literature and Culture, Yonsei University, Underwood International College, Seoul, Korea

Search for more papers by this author

Seung Wook Lee MD, PhD,

Corresponding Author

Seung Wook Lee MD, PhD

Department of Urology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

First published: 23 December 2014

https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12784

Citations: 1

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Introduction

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is important to prevent the adoption of findings of low-quality trials into clinical practice.

Aim

The aim of this study was to analyze the quality of studies reporting RCTs in andrology journals (The Journal of Sexual Medicine [JSM], the Asian Journal of Andrology [AJA], the Journal of Andrology [JOA], the International Journal of Andrology [IJA]).

Methods

A quality assessment was conducted on all studies identified as RCTs published in andrology journals (JSM, AJA, JOA, IJA) until 2011. The review period was divided into three terms: early, mid, and late each journal.

Main Outcome Measures

The Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT) were employed. The RCTs were also categorized by country of origin, the inclusion of institutional review board (IRB) approval, funding, and blindness.

Results

There were1,954 original articles published in the JSM, 893 articles in the AJA, 2,527 articles in the JOA, and 2,086 articles in the IJA for the review period. There were 172 studies reporting on RCTs in the JSM, 33 RCTs in the AJA, 63 RCTs in the JOA, and 29 RCTs in the IJA. No significant increase in Jadad or van Tulder scale scores were found over time, nor were there any significant changes in the number of high-quality articles as assessed by CCRBT. However, significant differences in quality analysis were found according to blinding, funding, and IRB approval.

Conclusion

The number of original articles and RCTs in andrology increased over time. However, the ratio of RCTs to original articles as well as RCT quality was statistically insignificant. It would be required for the researchers to focus efforts in performing high-quality studies to ensure appropriate randomization, reviews by IRB, financial support, and inclusion of allocation concealment during study performance. Jo JK, Chung JH, Kim KS, Song SH, and Lee SW. Reporting of randomized controlled trials in andrology journals: A quality assessment. J Sex Med 2015;12:350–357.

References

1Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. 1996. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 455: 3–5.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2Uetani K, Nakayama T, Ikai H, Yonemoto N, Moher D. Quality of reports on randomized controlled trials conducted in Japan: Evaluation of adherence to the CONSORT statement. Intern Med 2009; 48: 307–313.
10.2169/internalmedicine.48.1358
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1–12.
10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
4Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323: 42–46.
10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Featherstone K, Donovan JL. Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1998; 317: 1177–1180.
10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1177
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e22475.
10.1371/journal.pone.0022475
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Lim SM, Shin ES, Lee SH, Seo KH, Jung YM, Jang JE. Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias by levels of evidence. J Korean Med Assoc AID 2011; 54: 419–429.
10.5124/jkma.2011.54.4.419
Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276: 637–639.
10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Altman DG. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: Survey of instructions for authors. BMJ 2005; 330: 1056–1057.
10.1136/bmj.330.7499.1056
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Gagnier J, Boon H, Rochon P, Barnes J, Moher D, Bombardier C. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials evaluating herbal interventions: Implementing the CONSORT statement [corrected]. Explore (NY) 2006; 2: 143–149.
10.1016/j.explore.2005.12.003
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Clark HD, Wells GA, Huet C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, Fergusson D, Laupacis A. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: Reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials 1999; 20: 448–452.
10.1016/S0197-2456(99)00026-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 2003; 28: 1290–1299.
10.1097/01.BRS.0000065484.95996.AF
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 JPT Higgins, ed. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Vol. 5. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
10.1002/9780470712184
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14White PJ. Evidence-based medicine for consumers: A role for the Cochrane Collaboration. JMLA 2002; 90: 218–222.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: A comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001; 285: 1992–1995.
10.1001/jama.285.15.1992
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408–412.
10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 1358–1361.
10.1056/NEJM198312013092204
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18Zhang D, Yin P, Freemantle N, Jordan R, Zhong N, Cheng KK. An assessment of the quality of randomised controlled trials conducted in China. Trials 2008; 9: 22.
10.1186/1745-6215-9-22
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Xu L, Li J, Zhang M, Ai C, Wang L. Chinese authors do need CONSORT: Reporting quality assessment for five leading Chinese medical journals. Contemp Clin Trials 2008; 29: 727–731.
10.1016/j.cct.2008.05.003
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20Kim SW, Choi YS, Ahn HS, Lee HY, Ahn DS, Lee YM. Quantity and quality assessment of randomized controlled trials published in five Korean medical journals, from 1980 to 2000. J Korean Acad Fam Med 2004; 25: 118–125.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
21Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Clin Oral Investig 2003; 7: 2–7.
10.1007/s00784-002-0188-x
PubMed Google Scholar
22Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995; 16: 62–73.
10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-W
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23Hewitt C, Hahn S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J, Bland JM. Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: Review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. BMJ 2005; 330: 1057–1058.
10.1136/bmj.38413.576713.AE
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24Clifford TJ, Barrowman NJ, Moher D. Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: Are they related? Results of a pilot study. BMC Health Serv Res 2002; 2: 18.
10.1186/1472-6963-2-18
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998; 52: 377–384.
10.1136/jech.52.6.377
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2000. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/prog rams/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed March 28, 2011). [Internet].
Google Scholar
27Reisch JS, Tyson JE, Mize SG. Aid to the evaluation of therapeutic studies. Pediatrics 1989; 84: 815–827.
10.1542/peds.84.5.815
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28Thomas H. Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies: Effective public health practice project. Hamilton: McMaster University; 2003.
Google Scholar
29Wang YL, Chen Y, Wang Y, Wang SM. Assessment of the quality of clinical therapeutic research published in Chinese Journal of Pediatrics. Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi 2013; 51: 29–33, (in Chinese).
PubMed Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume12, Issue2

February 2015

Pages 350-357

Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in Andrology Journals: A Quality Assessment

Abstract

Introduction

Aim

Methods

Main Outcome Measures

Results

Conclusion

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in Andrology Journals: A Quality Assessment

Abstract

Introduction

Aim

Methods

Main Outcome Measures

Results

Conclusion

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information