ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
The critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials published in an Indian journal to assess the quality of reporting: A retrospective, cross-sectional study.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. 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.
- Clinical trials and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials: Continuing concerns of compliance in COVID-19 era.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the highest levels of evidence, they might not necessarily be of good quality. Hence, RCTs should always be appraised critically. Critical appraisal is the corroboration of evidence by methodically studying its validity, reliability, and applicability.
objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to do a critical appraisal of the RCTs published in Indian Journal of Pharmacology (IJP) from 2011 to 2016. The secondary objective was to scrutinize how adequately the published RCTs adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) declaration. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present study included all RCTs published as full-text articles in IJP from January 2011 to December 2016. The identified RCTs were critically appraised using the critical appraisal checklist based on CONSORT 2010 guidelines and its extensions.
resultsAccording to this analysis, 75% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.87) of the articles had given details about the sample size calculation. Nearly 89.29% (95% CI: 0.72-0.96) of the articles described the method for generating random allocation sequence, but only 35.71% (95% CI: 0.20-0.54) of the articles described allocation concealment method. Almost 35.71% (95% CI: 0.20-0.54) of the trials reported results as per the principle of the intention to treat (ITT). Nearly 21.43% (95% CI: 0.10-0.39) of the studies reported CIs in the present study.
conclusionAllocation concealment method, analysis of the data based on the ITT principle, and reporting CIs were found to be underreported in this study. There should be more emphasis on reporting of allocation concealment, ITT analysis, and CI.
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.