Search

Objectives Randomized controlled trials are one of the most reliable resources for assessing the effectiveness and safety of medical treatments. Low quality randomized controlled trials carry a large bias that can ultimately impair the reliability of their conclusions. The present study aimed to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials published in International Journal of Urology by using multiple quality assessment tools. Methods Randomized controlled trials articles published in International Journal of Urology were found using the Pub Med MEDLINE database, and qualitative analysis was carried out with three distinct assessment tools: the Jadad scale, the van Tulder scale and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The quality of randomized controlled trials was analyzed by publication year, type of subjects, intervention, presence of funding and whether an institutional review board reviewed the study. Results A total of 68 randomized controlled trial articles were published among a total of 1399 original articles in International Journal of Urology. Among these randomized controlled trials, 10 (2.70%) were from 1994 to 1999, 23 (4.10%) were from 2000 to 2005 and 35 (4.00%) were from 2006 to 2011 ( P = 0.494). On the assessment with the Jadad and van Tulder scale, the numbers and percentage of high quality randomized controlled trials increased over time. The studies that had institutional review board reviews, funding resources or that were carried out in multiple institutions had an increased percentage of high quality articles. Conclusions The numbers and percentage of high-quality randomized controlled trials published in International Journal of Urology have increased over time. Furthermore, randomized controlled trials with funding resources, institutional review board reviews or carried out in multiple institutions have been found to be of higher quality compared with others not presenting these features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To analyze the quality of studies reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of endourology. Materials and Methods: RCTs published in the Journal of Endourology from 1993 until 2011 were identified. The Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT) were used to assess the quality of the studies. The review period was divided into early (1993-1999), mid (2000-2005), and late (2006-2011) terms. Studies were categorized by country of origin, subject matter, single- vs multicenter setting, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and funding support, and blinding vs nonblinding. Results: In total, 3339 articles had been published during the defined review period, of which 165 articles were reporting a RCT. There was a significant increase in the number of RCTs published over time, with 18 (2.81%), 43 (4.88%), and 104 (5.72%) studies identified in the early, mid, and late term, respectively ( P=0.009). Nevertheless, there was no difference in terms of quality of reporting, as assessed with the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, or CCRBT, between the three study terms. On the other hand, significant differences were found in both the number of high qualitative RCTs that used blinding methodology and those that had IRB review, when comparing the early, mid, and late terms. Conclusion: There has been a growing number of Journal of Endourology publications reporting on RTC over the last two decades. The quality of reporting for these studies remains suboptimal, however. Researchers should focus on a more appropriate description of key features of any given RCT, such as randomization and allocation methods, as well as disclosure of IRB review and financial support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of the treatment strategies for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DES) according to the morphologic pattern of restenosis. Background: Optimal treatment strategies for ISR within DES have not been adequately addressed yet. Methods: Patients with ISR of DES were randomized according to the lesion length to compare outcomes of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus cutting balloon angioplasty for focal type (≤10 mm) and SES versus everolimus-eluting stent (EES) for diffuse type (>10 mm). The primary endpoint was in-segment late loss at 9 months. Overall 162 patients, 96 with focal ISR and 66 with diffuse ISR, were enrolled. Results: In focal lesions, in-segment late loss was significantly higher in the cutting balloon group (n = 48) than in the SES group (n = 48; 0.25 mm, interquartile range [IQR]: −0.01 to 0.68 mm vs. 0.06 mm, IQR: −0.08 to 0.17 mm; p = 0.04). Consequently, in-segment restenosis rate tended to be higher in the cutting balloon group than in the SES group (20.7% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.06) with comparable incidences of the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 12 months of clinical follow up (6.3% vs. 6.3%, p > 0.99). In 66 cases of diffuse ISR, in-segment late loss (0.11 mm, IQR: −0.02 to 0.30 mm; vs. 0.00 mm, IQR: −0.08 to 0.25 mm; p = 0.64), in-segment restenosis rate (5.0% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.32), and the composite incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization (9.6% vs. 8.8%, p > 0.99) did not differ between SES group (n = 32) and EES group (n = 34). Conclusions: For lesions of focal DES restenosis, repeat implantation of SES is more effective in reducing late luminal loss and subsequent restenosis rate than cutting balloon angioplasty. For diffuse DES restenosis, implantation of SES or EES is comparably effective in terms of angiographic and clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]