Background/Objectives: We compared statistical reporting and interpretation in original quantitative articles from 10 clinical neurology journals in 2015 and 2025. Methods: We audited 200 articles (10 per journal-year) drawn from nonexhaustive pools, assessing 13 reporting and five interpretation/consistency outcomes. Uncorrected journal-stratified Mantel–Haenszel odds ratios (ORs), Robins–Breslow–Greenland 95% confidence intervals, and Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel P values were calculated; Benjamini–Hochberg correction covered 18 comparisons. Two external assessors independently rated 20 articles for reliability; another pair independently reassessed 33 targeted items, with three third-adjudicator decisions and 11 final code changes. Complete full text was unverifiable for 74 articles; 23 historical discrepancies remained unresolved. Results: No primary comparison met the BH-FDR threshold (minimum q = 0.0532). Adequate effect-estimate reporting was 63.0% versus 75.5% (OR 1.95); uncertainty reporting, 49.0% versus 63.0% (OR 1.94); and exact P-value reporting, 68.5% versus 85.3% (OR 2.55), respectively, for 2015 and 2025. Trend language was nominally less frequent (OR 0.27) and causal overstatement more frequent (OR 2.69) in 2025. A post hoc historical stratum-wise 0.5 correction also yielded no FDR discoveries (minimum q = 0.0748). Conclusions: Observed differences remain exploratory and contingent on sampling, source accessibility, and coding reproducibility; they do not establish a field-wide temporal trend.