Low methodological and reporting quality of randomized, controlled trials of devices to treat urolithiasis

Journal of Urology

Volumn 191, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 988-993

  Zavitsanos, Peter J ^a   Bird, Vincent G ^a   Mince, Kathryn A ^a   Neuberger, Molly M ^a   Dahm, Philipp ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

equipment and supplies; kidney; randomized controlled trials as topic; ureter; urolithiasis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; URETER STENT; URETEROSCOPY; UROLITHIASIS; UROLOGICAL THERAPEUTIC DEVICE; ANTIRETROPULSION DEVICE; DATA EXTRACTION; ENDOSCOPE; LITHOTRITE; METHODOLOGY; SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPTER; STUDENT T TEST; URETERAL STENTING; UROLOGICAL SURGICAL EQUIPMENT;

EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; KIDNEY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; URETER; UROLITHIASIS;

HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; UROLITHIASIS; UROLOGY;

EID: 84898420198     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.10.067     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. P. Dahm, C.R. Chapple, and B.R. Konety et al. The future of clinical practice guidelines in urology Eur Urol 60 2011 72
2. A.W. Chan, and D.G. Altman Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors BMJ 330 2005 753
3. K.F. Schulz, D.G. Altman, and D. Moher et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials Ann Intern Med 152 2010 726
4. C.D. Scales Jr., R.D. Norris, and S.A. Keitz et al. A critical assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in the urology literature J Urol 177 2007 1090
5. T. McGinn, P.C. Wyer, and T.B. Newman et al. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic) CMAJ 171 2004 1369
6. G.H. Guyatt, A.D. Oxman, and G.E. Vist et al. GRADE: what is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 336 2008 995
7. R. Agha, D. Cooper, and G. Muir The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review Int J Surg 5 2007 413
8. P. McCulloch, I. Taylor, and M. Sasako et al. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions BMJ 324 2002 1448
9. P.J. Devereaux, P.T. Choi, and S. El-Dika et al. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods J Clin Epidemiol 57 2004 1232
10. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1.0, updated March 2011. Edited by JPT Higgins and S Green. The Cochrane Collaboration® 2011. Available at www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed August 12, 2013.
11. J.C. Singh, and P. Dahm Evidence-based urology in practice: what are levels of evidence? BJU Int 103 2009 860
12. P. Dahm, and G.M. Preminger A Users' Guide to the Urological Literature: introducing a series of evidence based medicine review articles J Urol 178 2007 1149
13. V.G. Bird, and V.Y. Bird Need for standardization in defining parameters and success in clinical trials involving surgical treatment of urinary lithiasis Curr Urol Rep 12 2011 87