ArticleJournal of Ayurveda and integrative medicine2016
Clinical trials in allied medical fields: A cross-sectional analysis of World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform.
Article in Journal of Ayurveda and integrative medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current landscape of dyslipidemia-related randomized clinical trials registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Osteoporosis-Related Randomized Clinical Trials With Middle-Aged and Older Adults Registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
- Short- vs. Long-Course Antibiotic Treatment for Acute Streptococcal Pharyngitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Clinical trials in Ayurveda: Analysis of clinical trial registry of India.Journal of Ayurveda and integrative medicineArticle
- Analysis of AYUSH studies registered in clinical trials registry of India from 2009 to 2020.Journal of Ayurveda and integrative medicineArticle
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
backgroundClinical trials are mandatory for evidence-based practice. Hardly, any data are available regarding the number of clinical trials and their methodological quality that are conducted in allied fields of medicine.
objectiveThe present study was envisaged to assess methodological quality of trials in allied medical fields. MATERIALS AND
methodsRegistered clinical trials in World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/AdvSearch.aspx) in the following fields were extracted: Acupuncture; Ayurveda; biofeedback; complementary and alternate medicine; herbal; homeopathy; massage; naturopathy; Reiki; Siddha; Unani; and yoga. The eligible studies were assessed for the following key details: Type of sponsors; health condition in which the trial has been conducted; recruitment status; study design; if randomization was present, method of randomization and allocation concealment; single or multi-centric; retrospective or prospective registration; and publication status in case of completed studies.
resultsA total of 276 clinical trials were registered majority of which have been proposed to be conducted in the field of oncology and psychiatry. Most of the clinical trials were done in single centers (87.75%), and almost all the clinical trials were investigator-initiated with pharmaceutical company sponsored studies contributing to a maximum extent of 24.5%. A large majority of the study designs were interventional where almost 85% of the studies were randomized controlled trials. However, an appropriate method of randomization was mentioned only in 27.4%, and the rate of allocation concealment was found to be just 5.5%. Only 1-2% of the completed studies were published, and the average rate of retrospective registration was found to be 23.6% in various fields.
conclusionThe number of clinical trials done in allied fields of medicine other than the allopathic system has lowered down, and furthermore focus is required regarding the methodological quality of these trials and more support from various organizations.
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.