Objective To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials(RCTs) on traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) in China from 1999 to 2004 by CONSORT statement and Jadad scale. Methods We randomly selected 13 journals of TCM including Chinese Journal of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine,ect using stratified sampling from about 100 journals of TCM in mainland China, and all issues of selected journals published from 1999 to 2004 were hand-searched according to the hand-search guideline developed by Cochrane Collaboration. All reviewers were trained in the method of evaluating RCTs . A comprehensive quality assessment of each RCT was completed using methods including the revised consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) checklist and Jadad scale. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results A total of 7422 RCTs were identified, and the percentage of RCTs was significantly increased by 18.6%, 23.9%, 27.5%, 28.8%, 33.0% and 35.6% from 1999 to 2004. The mean Jadad score was 1.03 ± 0.61 in all trials with 1 RCT with 5 points, 14 with 4 points, and 102 with 3 points, from 1999 to 2004, the mean Jadad score was 0.85±0.53 (n=746), 0.82±0.63 (n=941), 0.90±0.61 (n=1 243), 1.03±0.60 (n=1 325), 1.12±0.58 (n=1 533) and 1.20±0.62 (n=1 634) respectively, which was improved continuously but slowly. 39.4% of the items in CONSORT, which was equivalent to 11.82 (standard deviation=5.78) of a total of 30 items, were reported across those trials. Some important methodological components of RCTs such as sample size calculation (1.1%), randomization sequence (7.9%), allocation concealment (0.3%), implementation of the random allocation sequence (0.0%) , analysis of intention to treat (0.0%), were incompletely reported. Conclusion Our study suggests that the quality of reporting has been improved but still in poor status, which would urgently promote the establishment of the CONSORT for TCM.
Objective To assess the reporting quality of noninferiority and equivalence randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Methods The noninferiority and equivalence RCTs related to TCM were searched, and the quality of the included RCTs was identified in accordance with the extended version of CONSORT statement which refers to the reporting standard of noninferiority and equivalence RCTs. Results A total of 13 noninferiority and equivalence RCTs were included. Except for the common questions of RCTs in reporting quality, some contents related to noninferiority and equivalence trials in reporting were not enough: a) The title of RCTs did not reflect the most important content of the literature; b) The introduction of background was quite simple. The rationale about noninferiority and equivalence trials, and the effectiveness of positive control were not clearly defined; c) All literatures did not indicate whether the subjects, interventions and outcomes in the noninferiority and equivalence trials were identical or similar to those in previous trials of defining the effectiveness of control treatment; d) Most literatures did not define the critical value of noninferiority and equivalence, and did not estimate the sample size; e) Only half of literature described the statistical methods of noninferiority test and equivalence test; and f) Some literature had mistakes in noninferiority and equivalence conclusion. Conclusion The researchers still need deeper understanding of the theoretical basis of noninferiority and equivalence trials. The reference to the extended version of CONSORT statement, which refers to the reporting standard of noninferiority and equivalence RCTs, is helpful for researchers to identify the key points of the design, performance and reporting of the noninferiority and equivalence RCTs, to lay stress on the related contents of noninferiority and equivalence trial reporting, and to radically improve the reporting quality of such clinical trials.
Objective To investigate the current situation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of Sjogren’s syndrome with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), and to assess whether there is adequate evidence for clinical practice. Methods Such databases as CNKI, VIP, CBM and PubMed were searched from their establishment date to June 2010 to collect the RCTs on the treatment of Sjogren’s syndrome with TCM according to the predefined inclusion criteria. And the quality was assessed by using the Jadad scale, the revised CONSORT statement and other self-defined indexes.Results Among 19 included RCTs, 1 literature scored four points, 4 scored two points, 13 scored one point, and 1 scored zero point according to Jadad scale; no RCT performed the allocation concealment. According to the CONSORT criteria, 19 RCTs accounting for 100% reported the diagnostic criteria, implement of interventions and result, 11 RCTs applied the 2002 international diagnosis and classification criteria of Sjogren’s syndrome, 17 RCTs carried out positive control including one based on the standard treatment, and two RCTs applied only blank control without placebo control. All RCTs took the comprehensive efficacy assessment as the outcome index, but only 6 RCTs (31.6%) assessed both clinical efficacy and TCM syndrome efficacy. Among 6 RCTs (31.6%) describing the random sequence, no RCT reported the detailed methods. Except 1 RCT (5.3%) carried out the double blinding, all the others were non-blind trials. And only 1 RCT adopted analog. Conclusion Currently, the methodology and reporting quality of studies on the treatment of Sjogren’s syndrome with TCM are not good enough to provide reliable evidence for clinical practice.
Objective To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine by CONSORT statement and Jadad scale. Methods We handsearched the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine to identify TCM RCTs. The revised CONSORT statement and Jadad scale combined with self-established criteria were applied. Results A total of 57 RCTs were identified of which there were 17 TCM RCTs. Some items in CONSORT checklist were completely reported in all TCM RCTs, such as abstract, inclusion and exclusion criteria, intervention, randomization sequence generation, description of statistic method, description of baseline data, outcomes and estimation, and explain results. Compared with the previous findings, there were more trials in this study to report allocation concealment, randomization implementation, use of flow chart and appliance. Only 3 RCTs (17.6%) reported acknowledgements. One RCT did not describe syndrome type of TCM, and 4 RCTs (23.5%) carried out dummy. The mean Jadad score was 4.35±1.11 in all trials, of which 11 RCTs (64.7) ranked 5 points. Conclusion The comprehensive quality of reporting of TCM RCTs published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from 2001 to 2008 has been improved. After the publication of CONSORT statement and CONSORT for traditional Chinese medicine, the quality of reporting of TCM RCTs is improved. We are looking forward to improving the CONSORT for TCM.
Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in seven military medical journals. Methods Seven journals in 2007, including Medical Journal of Chinese People’s Liberation Army, Journal of South Medical University, Journal of Second Military Medical University, Journal of Third Military Medical University, Journal of Fourth Military Medical University, Bulletin of the Academy of Military of Medical Sciences and Academic Journal of PLA Postgraduate Medical School, were handsearched. We identified RCTs labeled “random” and assessed the quality of these reports using the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement. Results We identified 99 RCTs, but found an incorrect randomized method was used in 6 RCTs. According to the items in the CONSORT statement in 93 RCTs, 62 (66.7%) RCTs described baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in each group. Sixteen (17.2%) RCTs mentioned the method of random sequence generation, with 5 (5.4%) using a computer allocation. Only 1 RCT had adequate allocation concealment. Only 9 (9.7%) RCTs used blinding, with 2 mentioning blinding, 1 using single blinding and 6 described as double-blind (2 were correct). Zero (0%) reported the sample size calculation and 1 RCT reported the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Conclusion The reporting quality of RCTs in seven journals is poor. The CONSORT statement should be used to standardize the reporting of RCTs.
Objective To investigate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on laparoscopic surgery for treating colorectal disease in three SCI indexed. Methods We electronically retrieved the Ovid MEDLINE(R) from 1950 to present with Daily Updates for RCTs on laparoscopic surgery published in Diseases of the Colon amp; Rectum, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, or Colorectal Disease. The revised CONSORT statement and additional surgical items were adopted to assess the reporting quality. One point was assigned for each full description of an item, 0 for no description, and 0.5 for a partial description. Results A total of 20 RCTs were included and 8 RCTs were excluded. Their reporting quality was low. The average scores for the following items were relatively lower, 0.150 for settings where data collected; 0.250 for sample size estimation; 0.500 for sequence generation of randomization; 0.325 for allocation concealment; 0.150 for implementation; 0.475 for measurement of outcome; 0.150 for participant flow chart; 0.450 for adverse events; 0.450 for external validity; 0.400 for financial conflicts of interest; 0.250 for perioperative pharmacological treatment; 0.075 for perioperative nonphamacological treatment; 0.000 for participation of a trial methodologist; 0.350 for surgeon’s experience (years or position). Items with the lower scores were mainly in the methods and results section and surgical items. Conclusions The reporting quality of laparoscopic RCTs in these journals is low. Colorectal surgeons should rigorously evaluate reports in these journals before they apply to them in clinical practice.
Objective To investigate the current situation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on compound salvia pellet (CSP) for angina pectoris and assess whether there is adequate evidence for clinical practice. Methods We collected all the published clinical studies on CSP for angina pectoris from 1994 to December 2005, and assessed each included report using the Jadad scale, the revised CONSORT statement and other self-edited items. Results We finally identified 115 RCTs. Among which, 1 scored 3 points, 6 scored 2 points, 106 scored 1 points and 2 socred 0 points. No RCT performed allocation concealment according to the CONSORT criteria, only 4 RCTs (3.5%) described the generation of the randomization sequence, among which 2 were quasi-randomized. No RCT provided randomization implementation,1 RCT (0.9%) carried out placebo control, 1 RCT (0.9%) reported endpoint, 9 RCTs (7.8%) adopted single blinding, 4 RCTs (3.5%) reported double blinding, 11 RCTs (9.6%) calculated statistical values, 2 RCTs (1.7%) provided the record of follow-up, 1 RCT (0.9%) reported negative outcome, 25 RCTs (21.8%) described adverse events, no RCT described how the sample size was estimated, and how an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis and correlation analysis were reported, 1 RCT (0.9%) was multi-center, no RCT completed ethical approval and informed consent, 27 RCTs (23.5%) described syndrome type of TCM. Conclusion Currently, the methodology and reporting of studies on CSP for angina pectoris are not good enough to provide reliable evidence for clinical practice.
Objective To explore the quality of the reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine from 1999 to 2004. Methods A manual search was performed and the 22 checklists of CONSORT statement and other self-established criteria were applied. Results Six volumes and 72 issues were checked. There were 1 874 clinical trials of which 1288 (68.73%) RCTs were identified in 2 765 articles. Randomization methods were described in 630 (48.92%) RCTs which showed there was more significant difference than the RCTs published in 1998 (Plt;0.001).In the 1288 RCTs, placebo control was reported only in 21 trials (1.63%) and endpoint measurements were reported in 114 trials (8.85%). Seven trials (0.55%) mentioned the estimation of sample size. None mentioned randomization concealment. Blinding was reported in 54 trials (4.2%) and P value was reported in 9 trials (0.70%).Flow chart was not mentioned in any trials. Compliance was reported in 2 trials (0.16%), and only one trial (0.08%) reported negative results. Ancillary analysis was used in 33 trials (2.57%). 10 trials are multi-centre RCTs. None of the trials reported the approval of ethics committee. Informed consent was reported in 3 trials (0.24%). Acknowledgements were mentioned in 3 trials (0.24%). Syndrome types defined by traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) were reported in 163 trials (12.66%). The criteria of intervention quality control was mentioned in 2 trials (0.15%). Double dummy was used in 8 trials (0.63%) and outcome measurement of TCM was reported in 258 trials (20.04%). All Items reported in RCTs were of low quality. Conclusions The quality of reporting of RCTs published in the Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine from 1999 to 2004 has been improved, but it does not meet the CONSORT statement.