ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2020
Randomized controlled trials on erectile dysfunction: quality assessment and relevant clinical impact (2007-2018).
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The aim of this study was to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on erectile dysfunction (ED) conducted from 2007 to 2018. We searched for RCT original articles on ED published between 2007 and 2018 using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. RCT quality assessment was performed using Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool. The effects on RCT quality of including treatment methods, funding sources, institutional review board (IRB) approval statements, and intervention description to the studies were assessed. Blinding and allocation concealment were described in 67.9 and 8.7% of the RCTs, respectively. Blinding tended to decrease, but a sharp rise in blinding was observed in 2011-2012 and allocation in 2017-2018. Funding statement inclusion (60.3% overall) and intervention description (96.4% overall) tended to increase steadily. IRB statement inclusion (78.3% overall) increased (p = 0.05). Jadad scores rose significantly until 2011-2012 but decreased thereafter except 2017-2018 (p = 0.09). RCTs with funding statements had higher Jadad and van Tulder scores than unfunded RCTs (p < 0.01 and 0.02, respectively). Quality improvement has observed from 2007 to 2012 and 2017 to 2018 with Jadad scale because of increased funding, multicenter studies, and intervention description.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31024112What 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.