ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2017
Quality analysis of randomized controlled trials in the International Journal of Impotence Research: quality assessment and relevant clinical impact.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing an ethical framework-guided instrument for assessing bias in EHR-based Big Data studies: a research protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Quality Assessment and Relevant Clinical Impact of Randomized Controlled Trials of Varicocele: Next Step to Good-Quality Randomized Controlled Trial of Varicocele Treatment.The world journal of men's health · 2022Article
- The effectiveness of diabetes self-management education (DSME) on glycemic control among T2DM patients randomized control trial: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2020Article
- Randomized controlled trials on erectile dysfunction: quality assessment and relevant clinical impact (2007-2018).International journal of impotence research · 2020Article
- Synbiotics for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a probiotics strain-specific network meta-analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2019Article
- Article
- No differences in the efficacy among various core decompression modalities and non-operative treatment: a network meta-analysis.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in the International Journal of Impotence Research (IJIR) was analyzed. The original articles that reported RCTs and were published in the IJIR in 1997-2014 were identified by PubMed. Their methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The review period was divided into three periods: early (1997-2002), mid (2003-2008) and late (2009-2014). The effect of study subject and presence of Institutional Review Board approval, intervention, funding and adequate allocation concealment on RCT quality was assessed. The frequency of RCT publication in the IJIR did not change over the 19-year study period. Numbers of low risk of bias articles were 1 (3.0%), 2 (4.4%) and 4 (12.1%) in the early, mid and late periods in Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (P=0.04). High-quality low risk of bias RCT publication frequency increased over time. Intervention and funding significantly influenced RCT quality. Thus, the number of RCTs published in the IJIR over time has remained constant while their quality has improved. Ongoing efforts to expand the numbers of RCTs and further improve the quality of research published by the IJIR will improve clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27904149What 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.