Korean J Urol.  2011 Sep;52(9):642-646.

Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in the Korean Journal of Urology Over the Past 20 Years

• Lee JY
• Chung JH
• Kang DH
• Lee JW
• Moon HS
• Yoo TK
• Choi HY
• Lee SW

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.

Keyword

Korea; Prospective studies; Random allocation; Urology

MeSH Terms

Ethics Committees, Research
Financial Management
Humans
Korea
Patient Dropouts
Prospective Studies
Random Allocation
Urology

Reference

1. Park K. A Giant leap toward a renowned international journal. Korean J Urol. 2010. 51:79.

2. Park K. A new era in the Korean Journal of Urology. Korean J Urol. 2010. 51:297.

3. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996. 12:195–208.

4. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996. 17:1–12.

5. Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Tugwell P, Moher M, Jones A, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess. 1999. 3:1–98.

6. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998. 352:609–613.

7. van de Beek D, Wijdicks EF, Vermeij FH, de Haan RJ, Prins JM, Spanjaard L, et al. Preventive antibiotics for infections in acute stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Neurol. 2009. 66:1076–1081.

8. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Krebs Seida J, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2009. 339:b4012.

9. Weiger WA, Smith M, Boon H, Richardson MA, Kaptchuk TJ, Eisenberg DM. Advising patients who seek complementary and alternative medical therapies for cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2002. 137:889–903.

10. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002. 359:614–618.

11. Egger M, Smith G, Altman D. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2001. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Groups;87–108.

12. Kim 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.

13. Chung W, Lee KW, Hwang IH, Lee DH, Kim SY. Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine. Korean J Fam Med. 2009. 30:626–631.

14. Autorino R, Borges C, White MA, Altunrende F, Perdoná S, Haber GP, et al. Randomized clinical trials presented at the world congress of endourology: how is the quality of reporting? J Endourol. 2010. 24:2067–2073.

15. Hewitt 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.

16. Yang SK, Kim SJ, Park K. Bibliometrics review of the Korean Journal of Urology from 1960 to 2008: trends and future directions. Korean J Urol. 2009. 50:731–738.