Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials of Pharmacologic Treatment of Bipolar Disorders

Abstract

Our findings suggest that, while some trial-related information is well reported, a good part of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in bipolar disorder falls well below the required and also practically feasible level for many aspects essential for adequate interpretation of methodological quality and clinical relevance. Authors should be further encouraged to follow the CONSORT criteria.

Efficacy of pharmacotherapy in bipolar disorder: a report by the WPA section on pharmacopsychiatry

“…Pharmacoepidemiological studies give a picture to the extent the research findings are incorporated in everyday clinical practice, but also they report on the actual testing of research findings in the real world. Unfortunately, often the reporting of the material, methods and the results is insufficient in the published papers [469].…”

„Quality of reporting“ in Studien zur bipolaren Störung

“…So weichen die Ergebnisse dieses Reviews in vielen CONSORT-Punkten deutlich von Studien in anderen klinischen Disziplinen als auch von unseren Ergebnissen ab. Ein Teil der hier präsentierten Ergebnisse (Daten bis 2008) wurde bereits an anderer Stelle publiziert [26].…”

Changing trends with respect to standard of methodological reporting and type of research published in a pharmacology journal over a decade: a descriptive study

“…Criticisms against Indian research include features like redundant research topic, low quality methodological reporting leading to less credible results and poor statistical rigor to mention a few. [1][2][3][4] Despite these limitations, most researchers resort to National journals in their fields to assist them in finding topics of their dissertation or research studies. While it is important to read such journals to keep abreast the advancements in knowledge, it is equally important to have a reality check with respect to methodological reporting standards of published studies at repeated intervals to see how far we have managed to overcome the aforementioned criticisms.…”