ArticleScientific reports2025
Completeness and changes in data reporting pharmacological interventions to treat COVID-19.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Evaluation of consistency in adverse event reporting between trial registry and publications in COVID-19 pharmacological intervention trials.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reporting transparency is essential because studies that test pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 should be based on reliably reported data across dissemination sources. We conducted a cross-sectional study of reporting of WHO Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS) items in ClinicalTrials.gov RCTs from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. Completeness and changes among WHO TRDS items were investigated, whereby two authors evaluated RCTs independently to reach κ ≥ 0.80. The frequency of incomplete or uninformative information and the frequency of changes that altered the meaning of WHO TRDS items were assessed. There were changes during the conduct of the trial to 19 of 24 WHO TRDS items for 122 RCTs and 68 corresponding publications in peer-reviewed journals. Among the items, there were greater missing data-sharing statements in publications (52/68 [76%]) than at the initial (23/122 [19%]) or last (17/122 [14%]) registration. The reliability of extractions was high (kappa range: 0.80-1.00), where the lowest (kappa = 0.80, 95% CI 0.59-1.00) was for intervention description changes between the latest registered data and data in publications. Our findings emphasize the need for more reliable reporting of data between COVID-19 dissemination sources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.