ReviewCureus2025
Assessment of Adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Guidelines of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in an Indian and International Pharmacology Journal From 2019 to 2023.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard in clinical research, providing the highest level of evidence for the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. However, the validity and utility of RCTs depend on the quality of their design, conduct, and reporting. The purpose of this review was to assess the adherence of RCTs published in Indian and international pharmacology journals to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. RCTs published from 2019 to 2023 from one Indian and one international pharmacology journal were assessed using the CONSORT 2010 checklist, and the items were assigned as "present" or "absent." Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, and chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for categorical data. A total of 61 articles were analyzed, out of which 31 and 30 articles belonged to international and Indian journals, respectively. RCTs published in international journals consistently showed higher adherence rates compared to Indian journals, with statistically significant differences for several checklist items, including trial design description (31, 100%), intervention details (31, 100%), and reporting of harms (27, 87%) (p < 0.05). While Indian journals performed better on points like additional analyses (19, 63.3%) and recruitment dates (23, 76.6%). Overall, the international journal demonstrated significantly higher overall adherence to CONSORT guidelines compared to the Indian journal (p < 0.05). The international journal exhibited greater overall adherence than the Indian journal, with the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.05). The overall reporting was suboptimal. Adherence should be improved further, and the journals should ensure the compliance of authors and reviewers with the standard reporting guidelines.
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.