ArticleClinical and experimental vaccine research2026
Reporting quality and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials of rotavirus vaccines.
Article in Clinical and experimental vaccine research, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Although several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of rotavirus vaccines, few have comprehensively assessed their reporting quality and risk of bias. This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality and methodological rigor of RCTs on rotavirus vaccines using the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2.0) tool. Materials and Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and Cochrane Central for phase 3 randomized controlled trials of rotavirus vaccines administered as monotherapy. Reporting quality was assessed using the CONSORT 2010 checklist and risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool across five domains to determine overall methodological rigor. Results: A total of 29 phase 3 RCTs were included after screening 1,066 records. Most trials were conducted in Asia and funded by industry. Adherence to the CONSORT 2010 checklist was high for trial design and outcome reporting but poor for protocol availability, allocation concealment, and blinding procedures. Overall, 62% of studies had a low risk of bias, while 34% were rated high. Trials published after 2010 and those with low risk of bias showed significantly higher reporting quality. Conclusion: Adherence to the CONSORT 2025 guidelines is essential for future rotavirus vaccine trials, enhancing the quality of individual studies while reinforcing the broader evidence base that informs immunization strategies and public health policies.
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.