SynthesisSaudi medical journal2023
Systematic review and pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials in countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Methods and quality assessment.
Synthesis in Saudi medical journal, 2023. 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.
- Patient-reported outcome measurements in clinical trials in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov.Saudi medical journal · 2025Article
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
objectivesTo describe variations in characteristics of randomized controlled trials conducted in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, and critically appraising the quality of design, conduct and analysis of the trials.
methodsWe carried out a systematically comprehensive electronic search of articles published between 1990 and 2018 and indexed in several databases: i) MEDLINE/PubMed, ii) EMBASE, iii) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), iv) ClinicalTrials.gov, and v) World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We summarized the overall risk of bias present in all analyzed studies using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (CCRBT).
resultsA remarkable shift in numbers of publications from 2006 onwards was found. The largest number of publications were from Saudi Arabia and consisted of hospitals/clinics based studies. Lack of randomization was found in the majority of reports, and nearly three-fourth of the studies involved the use of intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. However, the proportion of adequately generated random sequence methods has increased yearly, and this increase accounted for a relatively large proportion over the latter half of the studied period (
conclusionThe randomization methods have gained more attention over the last 3 decades. Secondly, Journal impact factor can serve as an indicator of randomization quality. To mitigate the large rate of overall high risk of bias in GCC studies, high-quality trials must be considered by ensuring adequate allocation concealment and blinding methods.
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.