Skip to main content
. 2010 Oct;42(5):267–272. doi: 10.4103/0253-7613.70020

Table 2.

Classification of references as per validity of its presentation (n = 1003)

Type of reference Type of presentation
Total
Valid no (%) Partial no (%) Invalid no (%) Not retrievable no (%)
Research article# 286 (28.5) 31 (3.1) 71 (7.1) 388
Review article 121 (12.1) 19 (1.9) 38 (3.8) 178
Meta-analysis 17 (1.7) 7 4 28
In vitro study 32 (3.2) 6 20 (2) 58
Animal study 1 0 18 (1.8) 19
Book 7 0 1 24 (2.4) 32
Website 8 0 9 13 (1.3) 30
Data on file 0 0 0 14 (1.4) 14
Other journal articlea 14 (1.4) 0 3 17
Other referencesb 9 1 33 (3.3) 37(3.7) 80
Journal article not retrievablec 132(13.2) 159*
Journal citationd 27 (2.7)
Total 495 (49.3) 64 (6.4) 224 (22.3) 220 (21.9) 1003
#

Research articles include randomized controlled trials, randomized placebo controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, clinical trials without details of design, observational studies without details of design, retrospective studies, case–control studies, postmarketing surveillance studies;

a

Other journal article includes Case report, Correspondence article, Editorial, and Letter to editor;

b

Other references include conference proceedings, report, departmental study, therapeutic guidelines, name of author, name of institute newspaper article, health magazine article, unpublished trial or surveillance data, online medicine prescription information, physicians’ desk reference (PDR), “pharma aid,” and reference with vague description;

c

Article not retrievable using reference provided in the corresponding promotional brochure

*

Sum of “c” and “d.”

d

Journal citations invalid because of typographical error;