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 1997–2014 were identified 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 (1997–2002), mid (2003–2008) and late (2009–2014). 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 significantly influenced 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.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $32.38 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Uetani K, Nakayama T, Ikai H, Yonemoto N, Moher D . Quality of reports on randomized controlled trials conducted in Japan: evaluation of adherence to the CONSORT statement. Intern Med 2009; 48: 307–313.
Altman DG . Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. BMJ 1996; 313: 570–571.
Lim SM, Shin ES, Lee SH, Seo KH, Jung YM, Jang JE . Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias by levels of evidence. J Korean Med Assoc 2011; 54: 419–429.
Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL . The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS One 2011; 6: e22475.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 2012; 10: 28–55.
Chung W, Lee KW, Hwang IH, Lee DH, Kim SY . Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials in the journal of the korean academy of family medicine. Korean J. Fam Med 2009; 30: 626–631.
Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998; 280: 278–280.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ et al. Assessingthe quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1–12.
van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L . Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 2003; 28: 1290–1299.
Higgins JP, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Ver. 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Available at http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 7 January 2011.
Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Jones DR . Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9: 29.
Gill P, Dowell AC, Neal RD, Smith N, Heywood P, Wilson AE . Evidence based general practice: a retrospective study of interventions in one training practice. BMJ 1996; 312: 819–821.
Scales CD Jr, Norris RD, Keitz SA, Peterson BL, Preminger GM, Vieweg J et al. A critical assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in the urology literature. J Urol 2007; 177: 1090–1094.
Jo JK, Chung JH, Kim KS, Lee JW, Lee SW . Randomized controlled trials in the journal of sexual medicine: a quality assessment and relevant clinical impact. J Sex Med 2014; 11: 894–900.
Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr. . Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 1358–1361.
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG . Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408–412.
Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I et alImproving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statementJAMA 1996; 276: 637–639.
Altman DG . Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors. BMJ 2005; 330: 1056–1057.
Jo JK, Autorino R, Chung JH, Kim KS, Lee JW, Baek EJ et al. Randomized controlled trials in endourology: a quality assessment. J Endourol 2013; 27: 1055–1060.
Lee JW, Chung JH, Jo JK, Lee SW . Analysis of randomized controlled trials in Rheumatology International from 1981 to 2012: methodological assessment. Rheumatol Int 2014; 34: 1187–1193.
Bridoux V, Moutel G, Roman H, Kianifard B, Michot F, Herve C et al. Methodological and ethical quality of randomized controlled clinical trials in gastrointestinal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16: 1758–1767.
Lee JW, Chung JH, Jo JK, Lee SW . Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials published in neurourology and urodynamics from 1993 to 2012. Neurourol Urodyn 2014; 33: 472–474.
Kim SW, Choi YS, Ahn HS, Lee HY, Ahn DS, Lee YM . Quantity and quality assessment of randomized controlled trials published in five Korean medical journals, from 1980 to 2000. J Korean Acad Family Med 2004; 25: 118–125.
Clifford TJ, Barrowman NJ, Moher D . Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study. BMC. Health Serv Res 2002; 2: 18.
Lee JY, Chung JH, Kang DH, Lee JW, Moon HS, Yoo TK et al. Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials published in the korean journal of urology over the past 20 years. Korean J Urol 2011; 52: 642–646.
Schulz KF, Grimes DA . Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 2002; 359: 614–618.
Hewitt C, Hahn S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J, Bland JM . Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. BMJ 2005; 330: 1057–1058.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, K., Jo, J., Chung, J. et al. Quality analysis of randomized controlled trials in the International Journal of Impotence Research: quality assessment and relevant clinical impact. Int J Impot Res 29, 65–69 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2016.48
Randomized controlled trials on erectile dysfunction: quality assessment and relevant clinical impact (2007–2018)
International Journal of Impotence Research (2020)
The effectiveness of diabetes self-management education (DSME) on glycemic control among T2DM patients randomized control trial: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders (2020)
No differences in the efficacy among various core decompression modalities and non-operative treatment: a network meta-analysis
International Orthopaedics (2018)