ReviewNephro-urology monthly2015
Reporting Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Nephrology Urology Monthly Journal.
Review in Nephro-urology monthly, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of PDE5-Is and α-1 blockers for treating lower ureteric stones or LUTS: a meta-analysis of RCTs.BMC urology · 2018Pooled it
- The reporting quality of meta-epidemiological studies needs substantial improvement: a research on research study.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Risk of Bias in Iranian Randomized Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews.Archives of Iranian medicine · 2022Article
- Reporting quality of pilot clinical trials in chronic kidney disease patients on hemodialysis: a methodological survey.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2019Article
- Blinding and Its Quality in Clinical Trials Conducted on Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important tools for evidence-based health care decisions. It is, therefore, important that they be conducted and reported with the highest possible standards. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of the RCTs published in nephrology urology monthly journal and to examine whether there was a change over time in the reporting quality. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The quality of each report was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement checklist and a 5-point quality assessment instrument, i.e. the Jadad scale.
resultsEighteen (14 Iranian and 4 non-Iranian) RCTs were published from 2012 to 2014 on topics including renal stone (16.6%), hemodialysis and transplantation (38.8%), and prostate conditions (11.1%). Interventions comprised surgery, drugs, and teaching method in 7 (38 %), 10 (55%), and 1 (5%) of them, respectively. According to the CONSORT checklist, the weakest reported items were registration number, identification as a randomized trial in the title, and settings and locations where the data were collected. The mean Jadad score of the reports was 2.72 ± 1.36 (54% of their maximum possible total score). According to the Jadad and CONSORT scales, there was an increase in the quality of reporting from 2012 to 2014.
conclusionsThis assessment shows low reporting quality scores in reports. Training courses for researchers, using standard reporting tools (e.g. CONSORT 2010 Statement checklist), and consultation with methodologists can improve the quality of published RCTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.