Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of randomized controlled trials in Rheumatology International from 1981 to 2012: methodological assessment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the study is to assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Rheumatology International (RI) by using three types of analytical tools. MEDLINE was used to extract RCTs from original articles published in the RI from 1981 (vol. 1) to 2012 (vol. 32). The relationship between the number of articles and RCTs with time and that between various factors and the quality of RCTs were analyzed. To analyze the methodological quality of the RCTs, the time period was divided into several sections and three tools were applied (e.g., the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool). The number of RCTs published gradually increased with time significantly (p < 0.001). The differences in RCT quality scores by each method in the publication years evaluated were not statistically significant, but RCTs that included descriptions of allocation concealment methods had received institutional review board (IRB) approval, and that conducted in the multicenter had significantly higher-quality scores than other studies. In conclusion, although the number of RCTs published in RI since its publishing in 1981 has increased with time, but no qualitative improvement of RCT was observed over time. It is necessary to improve the reporting of concealment of allocation, generation of randomization sequences, design of blinded studies, and obtaining IRB approval, all of which are criteria of high-quality RCTs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hatala R, Keitz S, Wyer P, Guyatt G (2005) Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 4. Assessing heterogeneity of primary studies in systematic reviews and whether to combine their results. Can Med Assoc J 172:661–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Altman DG (1996) Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. BMJ 313:570–571

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL (2011) The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS One 6:e22475

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ et al (2012) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 10:28–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ et al (2010) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c869

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Newell SA, Sanson-Fisher RW, Savolainen NJ (2002) Systematic review of psychological therapies for cancer patients: overview and recommendations for future research. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:558–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Harbour R, Miller J (2001) A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ 323:334–336

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hill J, Bullock I, Alderson P (2011) A summary of the methods that the National Clinical Guideline Centre uses to produce clinical guidelines for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ann Intern Med 154:752–757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chung JH, Lee SW (2013) Assessing the quality of randomized controlled urological trials conducted by Korean medical institutions. Korean J Urol 54:289–296

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cho HJ, Chung JH, Jo JK, Kang DH, Cho JM, Yoo TK, Lee SW (2013) Assessments of the quality of randomized controlled trials published in International Journal of Urology from 1994 to 2011. Int J Urol. doi:10.1111/iju.12150

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:1290–1299

    Google Scholar 

  13. Higgins JP, Green S (eds) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Ver. 5.1.0. The Cochrane collaboration (7 Jan 2011). Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org

  14. Scales CD Jr, Norris RD, Keitz SA, Peterson BL, Preminger GM, Vieweg J, Dahm P (2007) A critical assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in the urology literature. J Urol 177:1090–1094

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2:e124

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bridoux V, Moutel G, Roman H, Kianifard B, Michot F, Herve C, Tuech JJ (2012) Methodological and ethical quality of randomized controlled clinical trials in gastrointestinal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 16:1758–1767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408–412

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Altman DG (1991) Randomisation. BMJ 302:1481–1482

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chan AW, Altman DG (2005) Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 365:1159–1162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c332

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mills EJ, Wu P, Gagnier J, Gagnier J, Devereaux PJ (2005) The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials 26:480–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Peron J, Pond GR, Gan HK, Chen EX, Almufti R, Maillet D, You B (2012) Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:982–989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chung JH, Lee JW, Jo JK, Kim KS, Lee SW (2013) A quality analysis of randomized controlled trials about erectile dysfunction. World J Mens Health 31:157–162

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jo JK, Autorino R, Chung JH, Kim KS, Lee JW, Baek EJ, Lee SW (2013) Randomized controlled trials in endourology: a quality assessment. J Endourol 27:1055–1060

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, Egger M (2002) Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA 287:2801–2804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG et al (2008) Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 336:601–605

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the research fund of Hanyang University (HY-201100000000250).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Guri Hospital, Hanyang University, 249-1, Gyomun-dong, Guri, 471-701, Korea

    Jeong Woo Lee & Seung Wook Lee

  2. Department of Urology, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea

    Jeong Woo Lee, Jae Hoon Chung, Jung Ki Jo & Seung Wook Lee

Authors
  1. Jeong Woo Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jae Hoon Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jung Ki Jo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seung Wook Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seung Wook Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, J.W., Chung, J.H., Jo, J.K. et al. Analysis of randomized controlled trials in Rheumatology International from 1981 to 2012: methodological assessment. Rheumatol Int 34, 1187–1193 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-014-2963-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-014-2963-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation