ArticleIndian journal of pharmacology
Standard of reporting animal-based experimental research in Indian Journal of Pharmacology.
Article in Indian journal of pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A study to assess the methodological quality ofIndian journal of pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of present study was to survey and determine the reporting standards of animal studies published during three years from 2012 to 2014 in the Indian Journal of Pharmacology (IJP). MATERIAL AND
methodsAll issues of IJP published in the year 2012, 2013 and 2014 were reviewed to identify animal studies. Each animal study was searched for 15 parameters specifically designed to review standards of animal experimentation and research methodology. OBSERVATION: All published studies had clearly defined aims and objectives while a statement on ethical clearance about the study protocol was provided in 97% of papers. Information about animal strain and sex was given in 91.8% and 90% of papers respectively. Age of experimental animals was mentioned by 44.4% papers while source of animals was given in 50.8% papers. Randomization was reported by 37.4% while 9.9% studies reported blinding. Only 3.5% studies mentioned any limitations of their work.
conclusionPresent study demonstrates relatively good reporting standards in animal studies published in IJP. The items which need to be improved are randomization, blinding, sample size calculation, stating the limitations of study, sources of support and conflict of interest. The knowledge shared in the present paper could be used for better reporting of animal based experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.