ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Evaluation of consistency in adverse event reporting between trial registry and publications in COVID-19 pharmacological intervention trials.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 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
introductionComplete and consistent reporting of adverse events (AE) affects decisions in clinical practice. We conducted a cross-sectional study aiming to assess transparency and completeness of reported adverse events from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on pharmacological interventions, including biologicals, to treat Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on or after January 1, 2020, and updated on or before May 31, 2021, along with corresponding publications.
aimWe aimed to assess the completeness and consistency of adverse event and all-cause mortality reporting between ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications.
methodWe conducted a cross-sectional comparison of safety reporting between ClinicalTrials.gov registry and peer-reviewed publications of RCTs investigating COVID-19 pharmacological interventions, including biologicals. Two authors evaluated RCTs to reach κ ≥ 0.80.
resultsA total of 68 trials were assessed for discrepancies in adverse event and all-cause mortality data. Thirty-one (46%) were industry-funded, and 44 (65%) were double-blind randomized clinical trials. Forty-nine (72%) publications had discordant counts of serious adverse events (SAE) descriptions, 35 (51%) had discrepancies in the number of patients affected by SAE, and 11 (16%) omitted all-cause mortality compared to the records in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry.
conclusionDiscrepant reporting of AEs and essential trial data was high in trials on COVID-19 therapeutics.
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.