ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2019
Systematic review on the quality of randomized controlled trials from Saudi Arabia.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical simulation in the teaching of cardiovascular physical examination with nursing students: a systematic review.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic review and pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials in countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Methods and quality assessment.Saudi medical journal · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical simulation for nursing competence development in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: systematic review.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2020Pooled it
- Translational prioritization of strategies to overcome poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor resistance in breast cancer based on systematic review of preclinical evidence.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Risk of Bias in Iranian Randomized Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews.Archives of Iranian medicine · 2022Article
- Barriers and facilitators to conducting economic evaluation studies of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: a survey of researchers.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- A Systematic Review of Sources of Outcomes and Cost Data Utilized in Economic Evaluation Research Conducted in the Gulf Cooperation Council.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Review
- Systematic review on the quality of randomized controlled trials in Saudi Arabia: Authors' response.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2020Article
- The quality check of a systematic review on the quality of randomized controlled trials from Saudi Arabia.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019Article
- Correspondence: Systematic review on the quality of randomized controlled trials in Saudi Arabia.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of randomized controlled trials from Saudi Arabia is unknown since most are observational studies.
objectiveTo determine (1) the quantity and quality of randomized controlled trials published from Saudi Arabia, and (2) whether significance of intervention effect varied by study quality.
methodsPubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane were searched with keywords for trials published from Saudi Arabia until February 2018. A total of 422 records were identified and screened, resulting in 61 eligible trials for analysis. Two researchers abstracted trial characteristics and assessed quality in seven domains (randomization, allocation concealment, blinding of assessors or participants, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias) using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool.
resultsA majority of the trials (57%) were published during 2010-2018. High risk of bias was present for blinding (outcome: 13%; participants and personnel: 28%). Biases could not be assessed due to lack of information (unclear risk) in the domains of randomization (54%), allocation concealment (44%), and blinding of outcome assessment (57%). When all seven domains were considered together (summary risk of bias), 0% of the trials had low risk, 39% had high risk, and 61% had unclear risk of biases. A greater proportion of high-risk trials had significant intervention effect than unclear-risk trials (79% vs. 67%).
conclusionThe volume and quality of trials in Saudi Arabia was low. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to address chronic diseases.
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.