ArticleIndian journal of pharmacology
A study to assess the methodological quality of
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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intraperitoneal drug delivery systems releasing cytostatic agents to target gastro-intestinal peritoneal metastases in laboratory animals: a systematic review.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2022Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGood reporting of experimental research is a vital part of research process. Although the reporting guidelines such as Animal research: Reporting
objectiveThe evaluation of the methodological quality of MATERIALS AND
methodsAll
resultsOne hundred and sixty-one studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Seventy-three articles (45.34%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-0.53) discussed about randomization procedure. Eighteen articles (11.18%, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16) gave details about blinding when assessing results. None of the studies provided details of sample size calculation. Eight articles (4.97%, 95% CI: 0.02-0.09) commented on the study limitations.
conclusionIt was found that adherence to only some criteria of ARRIVE guidelines was subpar. There is a need for optimal reporting of random distribution of animals to experimental groups, concealment of allocation, blinded outcome evaluation, computation of sample size, and attrition of animals for improving the validity of AR.
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.