ArticleBMC urology2022
Quality assessment and relevant clinical impact of randomized controlled trials on chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.
Article in BMC urology, 2022. 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.
- The methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome using AMSTAR2.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).
methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase for RCTs (original articles) on CP/CPPS published from database establishment to 2021. The RCT quality assessment was performed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement and the improved Jadad scale.
resultsIn total, 77 RCTs were included. According to the evaluation, 26 (33.77%) papers presented the description of the specific random methods, only 6 (7.79%) papers described the allocation concealment methods, and 26 (33.77%) articles referred to the "blind method". Of the RCTs, 34 (44.16%) papers recorded the number of patients who withdrew from the study, and 67 (87.01%) papers reported adverse reactions. However, few reports mentioned the sample size calculation, clinical trial registration, or information about the relevant research programs and funding. In addition, 19 (24.68%) reports had Jadad scale scores of ≥ 4 points, and 58 (75.32%) reports had Jadad scale scores of ≤ 3 points.
conclusionTo date, the quality of RCT reports on CP/CPPS needs to be further improved, and the results of the RCTs should be accepted and utilized cautiously. It is suggested that researchers should follow the CONSORT statement and the improved Jadad scale to standardize the design and implementation of RCTs to improve the quality of RCTs and provide reliable evidence for the treatment of CP/CPPS.
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.