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

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
K S Kim ◽  
J K Jo ◽  
J H Chung ◽  
J H Kim ◽  
H Y Choi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Clinical Impact ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Quality Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Research Quality Assessment

Randomized Controlled Trials in the Journal of Sexual Medicine : A Quality Assessment and Relevant Clinical Impact

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 894-900 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung Ki Jo ◽  
Jae Hoon Chung ◽  
Kyu Shik Kim ◽  
Jeong Woo Lee ◽  
Seung Wook Lee
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Clinical Impact ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Sexual Medicine ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammed Rashid ◽  
Madhan Ramesh ◽  
K. Shamshavali ◽  
Amit Dang ◽  
Himanshu Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

scholarly journals Randomized Controlled Trials In Endourology: A Quality Assessment

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 1055-1060 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung Ki Jo ◽  
Riccardo Autorino ◽  
Jae Hoon Chung ◽  
Kyu Shik Kim ◽  
Jeong Woo Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document