SynthesisTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) - A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. 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.
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
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
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to assess the quality and characteristics of RCTs in the ASEAN Member States (AMS) during a decade of harmonization efforts.
methodsThis study is a systematic review to assess the quality of RCTs conducted in AMS. Studies were included if they were (1) reports of RCTs involving AMS from 2010 to 2021; (2) published in English; and (3) available in full text. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool and were classified as high- or low-quality. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify characteristics associated with RCT quality. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS: A total of 51,177 articles were identified, among which 437 studies were eligible for quality assessment. Of the 437 studies, 41.6% were of high-quality. The use of blinding and a higher number of participants (100-1000 and > 1000) contributed positively to study quality (odds ratio (OR): 1.60 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-2.41]; OR: 1.91 [95%CI: 1.24-2.94]; OR: 3.14 [95%CI: 1.22-8.10], respectively). Whereas the use of non-parallel assignment in the type of randomization contributed negatively to study quality (OR: 0.51 [95% CI: 0.26-1.03], P = 0.060). Among the six AMS with a high number of RCTs, two had high-quality studies > 50%, three had slightly more than 40% and one had less than 20%.
conclusionsIn the decade of regulatory harmonization, less than half of RCTs in AMS were of high-quality. Large numbers of participants and the use of blinding were associated with high-quality RCTs, while the opposite was true for studies with non-parallel assignment. To improve the quality of RCTs, more training and capacity building of local researchers is needed, with particular attention to study design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40307625What 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.