ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Characteristics and result reporting of registered COVID-19 clinical trials of Chinese and Indian traditional medicine: A comparative analysis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- The brief overview, antivirus and anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity, quantitative methods, and pharmacokinetics of cepharanthine: a potential small-molecule drug against COVID-19.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
- Clinical trial trends over the last 5 years among the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) nations.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the main characteristics and result reporting of registered COVID-19 interventional trials of traditional Chinese medicine and traditional Indian medicine. Materials and methods: We assessed design quality and result reporting of COVID-19 trials of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and traditional Indian medicine (TIM) registered before 10 February 2021, respectively, on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) and Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI). Comparison groups included registered COVID-19 trials of conventional medicine conducted in China (WMC), India (WMI), and in other countries (WMO). Cox regression analysis was used to assess the association between time from trial onset to result reporting and trial characteristics. Results: The proportion of COVID-19 trials investigating traditional medicine was 33.7% (130/386) among trials registered on ChiCTR, and 58.6% (266/454) on CTRI. Planned sample sizes were mostly small in all COVID-19 trials (median 100, IQR: 50-200). The proportion of trials that were randomized was 75.4 and 64.8%, respectively, for the TCM and TIM trials. Blinding measures were used in 6.2% of the TCM trials, and 23.6% of the TIM trials. Cox regression analysis revealed that planned COVID-19 clinical trials of traditional medicine were less likely to have results reported than trials of conventional medicine (hazard ratio 0.713, 95% confidence interval: 0.541-0.939; Conclusion: There were considerable between-country and within-country differences in design quality, target sample size, trial participants, and reporting of trial results. Registered COVID-19 clinical trials of traditional medicine were less likely to report results than trials of conventional medicine.
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.