ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in five Chinese psychiatric journals from 2016 to 2020 and to compare the reporting quality with that from 2004 to 2008. MethodsRCTs in five Chinese psychiatric journals were collected through a computerized search of the CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases and manual searches of paper journals, all with a search timeframe from 2016 to 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement and two extensions (CONSORT extension for abstracts and CONSORT harms extension) were used to evaluate the RCTs. The criteria for reporting quality were the evaluation score, reporting proportion, and compliance proportion. The reporting quality of RCTs in the past 5 years was compared by year group. In addition, the RCT reporting quality from 2004 to 2008 was compared with that from 2016 to 2020. ResultsIn total, 226 RCTs were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the total evaluation score or abstract score from 2016 to 2020 (F=0.54, P=0.71; H=1.49, P=0.83). However, there were statistically significant differences in the harm scores from 2016 to 2020 (H=10.78, P=0.03). Further analysis of the items revealed statistically significant differences in the reporting proportion of items 16 and 19 (Fisher’s=8.61, P=0.04; χ2=11.63, P=0.02) and no significant differences in the other items (P>0.05). The reporting proportion of defined primary and secondary outcome indicators, allocation concealment, randomization implementation, outcomes and estimation, generalization, trial registration, and flow chart was <10% in each year. There was a statistically significant difference in the compliance proportion of RCT reporting quality from 2016 to 2020 versus 2004 to 2008 (39.54%±8.92% vs. 34.76%±9.16%, t=6.60, P<0.001). ConclusionThe reporting quality of RCTs in five Chinese psychiatric journals from 2016 to 2020 is better than that from 2004 to 2008. However, the reporting quality of RCTs within the latter 5 years still have reporting deficiencies in important items, and many aspects still are needed to be improved and enhanced.
Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on acupuncture for acute ischemic stroke. Methods Six databases including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), EMbase (1984 to December 2005), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, 1994 to December 2005), China Biomedicine Database disc (CBMdisc, 1980 to December 2005), VIP (a full text issues database of China, 1989 to December 2005) were searched systematically. Handsearch for further references was conducted. Language was limited to Chinese and English. We identified 74 RCTs that used acupuncture as an intervention and assessed the quality of these reports against the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).Results In regard to the items in the CONSORT statement, 54 (73%) RCTs described baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in each group. Twenty-six (35%) mentioned the method of generating the random sequence, with 4 (5%) using a computer allocation. Only 6 (8%) RCTs had adequate allocation concealment, with 5 RCTs using sealed opaque envelopes and 1 RCT using centralized computer allocation. Only 8 (11%) RCTs used blinding, including 5 described as double-blind. Four (5%) RCTs reported the sample size calculation and 5 (7%) RCTs reported that an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. In regard to the items in STRICTA , only 4 (5%) RCTs reported the numbers of needles inserted. In 35 (47%) RCTs the needle type was reported, but only 26 (35%) mentioned the depths of insertion. Only 1 (1%) RCT mentioned the length of clinical experience and 6 (8%) RCTs reported the background of the acupuncture practitioners, but none stated the duration of their training.Conclusion The reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for acute ischemic stroke was low. The CONSORT statement and STRICTA should be used to standardize the reporting of RCTs of acupuncture.
ObjectiveTo investigate the methodological and reporting quality of clinical trials involving Xiaoyao San for chronic fatigue syndrome. MethodsWe searched PubMed, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about Xiaoyao San for chronic fatigue syndrome. The methodological and reporting quality of included RCTs was respectively evaluated according to the assessment tool of risk of bias of the Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0 and the CONSORT 2010 statement, combined with complementary assessment by the characteristic indicators of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). The methodological and reporting quality of included case series study was respectively assessed by the methods recommended by the Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the STROBE statement. ResultsA total of 27 clinical trials were included, involving 11 RCTs and 16 case series studies. According to the assessment tool of risk of bias of the Cochrane Handbook, 54.5% of the RCTs performed proper random method, 9.1% conducted allocation concealment and blinding, 72.7% selected intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis without the report of loss to follow-up, and no RCT existed selective reports. Corresponding to the characteristic indicators of TCM, 54.5% of the RCTs did not conduct TCM syndrome diagnosis, the curative effect standard of TCM syndrome was discrepant, and no RCT was multi-center study. The CONSORT 2010 statement indicated that no RCT explained sample size estimation, implementation details of randomization, flow diagram of participant, use of ITT and clinical trial registration. According to the items recommended by Britain's NICE, 6.25% of the case series studies were multi-center, 81.25% did not report clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and no case series study performed continuous patient recruitment and stratification analysis of outcome. The STROBE statement indicated that no case series study reported research design, sample size, flow chart, bias, limitations and generalizability. ConclusionThe quality of clinical trials about Xiaoyao San for chronic fatigue syndrome is still low in methodological and reporting aspects. It is suggested that the future clinical trials should be conducted with references of CONSORT statement and STROBE statement, to propel the modernization and internationalization of TCM.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the reporting quality of domestic and foreign randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on acupuncture for dry eye based on Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Expand Statement 2010 (CONSORT 2010) and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).MethodsCNKI, VIP, CBM, WanFang Data, PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library databases were electronically searched to collect RCTs of acupuncture for dry eye at home and abroad from inception to February 2020. The reporting quality of the selected literature was evaluated with the items in the CONSORT and STRICTA, respectively.ResultsA total of 69 Chinese literatures and 8 English literatures were included. The average reporting rate of all items of CONSORT in Chinese and English literatures was 41.4% and 56.4%, respectively. The missing items of Chinese literature report primarily focused on the sections of “methodology”, “results”, and “other information”. The Chinese and English literature report rate was relatively close in terms of the literature report rate of STRICTA, and both were relatively complete in the description of acupuncture intervention.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture treatment for dry eye in China and abroad is generally low. Further improving the relevant reporting quality according to the CONSORT statement 2010 and STRICTA 2010 is urgent.
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 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 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.
Within person trial is an efficient study design for randomized controlled trials which has been widely used in fields of dentistry, dermatology and ophthalmology. However, due to a series of inherent methodological difficulties, the design, conduct and reporting of within person trials usually requires additional methodological knowledge and considerations from researchers. To standardize and improve the reporting quality of these trials, the BMJ recently published the CONSORT statement extension for within person trials. The present article aimed to provide interpretation of this reporting guideline, and thereby promote its understanding and use among Chinese researchers.
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.