Quality analysis of randomized controlled trials in the International Journal of Impotence Research: quality assessment and relevant clinical impact

International Journal of Impotence Research (2017) 29, 6569 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved 0955-9930/17

www.nature.com/ijir

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Quality analysis of randomized controlled trials in the International Journal of Impotence Research: quality assessment and relevant clinical impact

KS Kim1, JK Jo2, JH Chung3, JH Kim4, HY Choi1 and SW Lee1

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 19972014 were identied 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 (19972002), mid (20032008) and late (20092014). 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 signicantly inuenced 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.

International Journal of Impotence Research (2017) 29, 6569; doi:10.1038/ijir.2016.48; published online 1 December 2016

INTRODUCTIONTo ensure the best outcomes in the diagnosis and treatment of disease, it is crucial that clinical decisions are on the basis of the best external clinical research evidence. Of the various clinical research approaches that are available, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are particularly important for the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) because they follow a study design that reduces bias and thus generates the most reliable assessment of the effectiveness of medical treatments.1

However, RCTs can also be prone to bias because of weaknesses in the study design, execution of the study and reporting of the results. Such bias can lead to clinically...