ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2018
Quality of randomized controlled trials published in the International Urogynecology Journal 2007-2016.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of evidence in a post-Soviet country: evaluation of methodological quality of controlled clinical trials published in national journals from Uzbekistan.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Trial
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best quality clinical evidence. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of RCTs published by the International Urogynecology Journal (IUJ) in 2007-2016.
methodsRCTs in original articles were extracted from PubMed and IUJ homepage. Change in RCT quality over time was assessed with Jadad and van Tulder scales and Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool (CCRBT). Jadad scores of 3-5 or van Tulder scores of >5 indicated high-quality RCTs. The effect on RCT quality of including funding source and institutional review board (IRB) approval statements and describing the intervention was assessed. In addition, changes in RCT topics over time were assessed.
resultsAnnual RCT frequencies did not change significantly (6.7-15.7%): 36.1% and 25.7% described blinding and allocation concealment, respectively. Both tended to increase between 2013 and 2016, particularly 2013 and 2014. Funding statement inclusion (39.1% overall) and intervention description (78.2% overall) tended to increase steadily. IRB statement inclusion (60.4% overall) increased significantly (p < 0.01). Jadad scores and van Tulder rose significantly until 2014 (p < 0.01). Frequencies of high-quality RCTs tended to rise. CCRBT indicated that RCTs with a low risk of bias tended to increase until 2014. However, from 2015, Jadad scores, van Tulder, and CCRBT the low risk tended to decreased. RCTs with funding and IRB approval statements had higher Jadad and van Tulder scores than unfunded RCTs (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). Intervention description did not associate with better quality.
conclusionsRCT quality improved over time, but a dip in quality was observed in 2015-2016 because of decreased blinding and allocation concealment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28884346What 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.