Skip to content

Advertisement

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The quality of reports of randomized clinical trials on traditional Chinese medicine treatments: a systematic review of articles indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database from 2005 to 2012

  • Jinnong Li1,
  • Zhenhua Liu2,
  • Ruiqi Chen1,
  • Dan Hu1,
  • Wenjuan Li1,
  • Xiajing Li1,
  • Xuzheng Chen1,
  • Baokang Huang3 and
  • Lianming Liao1Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Complementary and Alternative MedicineThe official journal of the International Society for Complementary Medicine Research (ISCMR)201414:362

https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-14-362

Received: 14 May 2014

Accepted: 21 August 2014

Published: 26 September 2014

Abstract

Background

The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) are aimed to standardize clinical trial reporting. Our objective is to compare the quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) published in 2005–2009 and 2011–2012 according to the current CONSORT statements and Jadad scale.

Methods

Data Sources: Reports on RCTs of TCM in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI database) for manuscripts published from 2005 to 2009 and 2011–2012. Search terms included TCM and clinical trial. Study Selection: Manuscripts that reported RCTs of TCM were included. Data Extraction: Independent extraction of articles was done by 3 authors. Disagreement was discussed until agreement was reached. According to the CONSORT checklist, an item was scored as 1 when the item was described in the paper. Otherwise the item was scored as 0.

Results

A total of 4133 trials in 2005–2009 and 2861 trials in 2011–2012 were identified respectively. There was a significant increase in proportion of reports that included details of background (24.71% vs 35.20%, P < 0.001), participants (49.79% vs 65.26%, P < 0.001), the methods of random sequence generation (13.77% vs 19.85%, P < 0.001), statistical methods (63.00% vs 72.77%, P < 0.001) and recruitment date (70.14% vs 80.36%, P < 0.001) in 2011–2012 compared to 2005–2009. However, the percentage of reports with trial design decreased from 4.45% to 3.25% (P = 0.011). Few reports described the blinding methods, and there was a decreasing tendency (4.77% vs 2.48%, P < 0.001). There was a similar decreasing tendency on the reporting of funding (6.53% vs 5.00%, P = 0.007). There were no significant differences in the other CONSORT items. In terms of Jadad Score, the proportion of reports with a score of 2 was markedly increased (15.15% vs 19.71%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Although the quality of reporting RCTs of TCM was improved in 2011–2012 compared to 2005–2009, the percentages of high-quality reports are both very low in terms of Jadad score. There is a need for improving standards for reporting RCTs in China.

Keywords

Traditional chinese medicineConsolidated standards for reporting trialsRandomized clinical trialJadad score

Background

In order to acquire effective and credible outcomes, randomization and control are essential for clinical trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable evidence of health care intervention and are the basis for the establishment of many medical guidelines. However, RCTs are not always reported with sufficient details or clarity, potentially hindering interpretation of results [1, 2]. For a reader to accurately evaluate the conclusion of a published report, he (she) needs complete, clear, and transparent information on the methodology and findings of the report. Unfortunately, attempted assessments frequently fail because authors of many trial reports do not describe some critical data and only limited information is available [35].

The CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) statement was first published in 1996, revised in 2001 and updated in 2010 by the CONSORT Group. They provide authors and editors with a checklist for a minimum set of recommendations for reporting the trial design, analysis and results [68]. Many studies have showed that quality of trial reporting can be improved when authors follow the checklist of the CONSORT [912]. The Jadad score is considered a valid and reliable tool to assess the methodological quality of a clinical trial, and has been applied throughout the medical literature [13, 14].

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), including herbal medicine, are widely used in China to treat a variety of diseases and used increasingly to complement conventional medical care globally. In a nationally representative U.S. survey conducted in 2002, almost 20% of adults and 75%–100% of Asian-Americans had used herbal therapies in the past year [15]. They believe the TCM and conventional medicine provides more optimal healing than conventional medicine alone [1618]. However, in the era of evidence-based medicine, TCM has encountered a strong challenge from clinicians due to a shortage of evidence-based efficacy. Therefore, researchers have made a great deal of effort in TCM clinical studies. In the past decade, TCM RCT is avocated and a number of RCTs of TCM have been reported [1923]. Recently many TCM researchers evaluated the quality of RCTs with TCM according to the checklist of the CONSORT [2429]. Their studies show that the quality of TCM RCTs is generally low. However, these studies evaluated only one or several TCM journals, or evaluated publication on a specific disease. Thus they cannot give a comprehensive view on the overall quality of TCM RCTs.

The purpose of the present study was to compare the change in quality of reporting TCM RCTs prior to and after the publication of the 2010 CONSORT statement. We include all publications of TCM RCTs during this period in the CNKI database, aiming to comprehensively evaluate the overall quality of TCM RCTs.

Methods

Search strategy

The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database is the most comprehensive full-text database of journals published in China and was used in the present study [30]. The CNKI database has several subdatabases. Among them is the academic journals’ full-text database, which was used in the present study. We chose manuscripts published in 2005–2009 and 2011–2012, which respectively represent publications before and after the 2010 CONSORT statement. We used an electronic search strategy that involved subject term ‘traditional Chinese medicine’ and ‘clinical trial’ and “Fuzzy Search” method so as to acquire more potential manuscripts. To evaluate the tendency of publication quality, we evaluated the published reports on an annual base. The titles, index terms, and abstracts of the identified manuscripts were read and rated as “potential manuscript” or “not relevant”. We retrieved all potential manuscripts and reviewed their full texts according to the following criteria:

Inclusion criteria were manuscripts reporting TCM RCTs.Exclusion criteria were (1) review, literature analysis, experience, case report; (2) animal experiments; (3) Non-randomized clinical trials; (4) reduplicative reporting; (5) retrospective study; (6) others. Three reviewers (J L, Z L, R C) reviewed the texts of the manuscripts to identify TCM RCTs. Disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved by discussion. Figure 1 shows the process of collecting materials and analysis.
Figure 1

The process of collecting materials.

Scoring according to CONSORT

A checklist of 25 items from the updated 2010 CONSORT guidelines was used [3133]. Among the 25 items, 12 have 2 subitems. The score for each item or subitem was either 0 or 1: 0 indicates no description of the corresponding item/subitem and 1 indicates there was description of the item/subitem in the report. We did not include the following subitems in our report because we found after analysis of all manuscript that (1) there were no reports that changed the methods after trial commencement (Subitem 3b); (2) there were no reports that changed trial outcomes after the trial commenced (Subitem 6b); (3) there were no reports that had interim analyses and stopping guidelines (Subitem 7b); (4) there were no reports that were stopped prematurely (Subitem 14b); (5) there were no reports that had additional analyses (Subitem 18). After these 5 subitems were excluded, the maximum score a paper could obtain 31 points. Each article was assessed for every item according to the checklist [29] by three investigators independently (J L, Z L and R C). When there were different opinions between three investigators, they discussed them until reaching a consensus. Otherwise the final decision was made by L L. The total score of each trial was calculated.

Scoring according to Jadad

The Jadad scale is a 5-point scale for measuring the quality of randomized trials. A score of three points or more indicates high quality [13]. The Jadad scale includes how generation of random sequence is described (0 = no description; 1 = inadequate description; 2 = adequate description); how the blinding is carried out (2 = double-blinding with adequate description; 1 = double-blinding with inadequate description; 0 = wrong usage of double-blinding), and why and how often withdrawal of patients happens (When the numbers and reasons of withdrawal and exit of patients were reported, we recorded 1. Otherwise, 0 was recorded). Similarly, the work was done by three investigators (J L, Z L and R C) separately. Disagreement was discussed by three until agreement was reached. Otherwise final decision was made by L L.

Statistics

Pearson χ2 test was used to test whether differences among two periods (2005–2009 and 2011–2012) were statistically significant in terms of mean total score of CONSORT. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test differences of Jadad scores of the different years. The levels of significance for all tests were set at 0.05. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 18.0. The total score of each report and the percentage of different score were calculated.

Results

Characteristics of selected RCTs

After screening the titles, abstracts and texts, we identified a total of 4133 reports in 2005–2009 and 2861 in 2011–2012 in the CNKI database that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in this analysis. The annual numbers of reports identified in each screening step are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Results of screening for randomized clinical trials from 2005 to 2012

 

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2011

2012

Records identified through database searching

2040

2142

2795

3595

3706

6072

5874

Duplicated papers

3

6

6

22

80

24

83

Reviews

347

387

609

773

717

1176

1255

Experience

148

146

209

242

275

785

530

Literature analysis

30

36

26

39

59

93

72

Animal experiments

22

20

17

20

18

15

12

Not randomized

512

540

648

679

772

1083

1076

Retrospective study

3

13

16

25

17

23

86

Case report

20

38

47

80

77

189

156

Others

244

257

548

704

648

1342

1085

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility

711

699

669

1011

1043

1342

1519

Studies included in final review

711

699

669

1011

1043

1342

1519

The CONSORT results

CONSORT: title, abstract, background and objectives

The proportion of reports with “randomized” in the title (1a) increased significantly (0.56% vs 1.15%, P = 0.006). However, the percentages were very low for both periods (Table 2 and Figure 2). 84.81% of reports had abstracts (1b) that included objective, methods, results and conclusions in 2005–2009, more than that in 2011–2012 (82.03%). The proportions of reports with detailed description of backgrounds (2a) of studies were low for both periods, but were higher in 2011–2012 (24.71% in 2005–2009 vs 35.20% in 2011–2012, P < 0.001). The proportions of reports with objectives (2b) were also low (6.36% vs 5.14%, P = 0.032) (Table 2).
Table 2

Comparision of randomized control trials indexed in CNKI database before and after 2010 in terms of CONSORT items

Criterion

Item no.

No. (%) of trials in which the item was clearly reported

P value

  

All (n = 6994)

Before 2010 (n = 4133)

After 2010 (n = 2861)

 

Title and abstract

1a

56 (0.80)

23 (0.56)

33 (1.15)

0.006

 

1b

5852 (83.67)

3505 (84.81)

2347 (82.03)

0.002

Background and objectives

2a

2028 (29.00)

1021 (24.71)

1007 (35.20)

<0.001

 

2b

410 (5.86)

263 (6.36)

147 (5.14)

0.032

Trial design

3a

277 (3.96)

184 (4.45)

93 (3.25)

0.011

Participants

4a

3925 (56.12)

2058 (49.79)

1867 (65.26)

<0.001

 

4b

4938 (70.60)

2664 (64.46)

2274 (79.48)

<0.001

Interventions

5

5699 (81.48)

3342 (80.86)

2357 (82.38)

0.107

Outcomes

6a

6176 (88.30)

3626 (87.73)

2550 (89.13)

0.074

Sample size

7a

20 (0.29)

8 (0.19)

12 (0.42)

0.082

Sequence generation

8a

1137 (16.26)

569 (13.77)

568 (19.85)

<0.001

 

8b

117 (1.67)

78 (1.89)

39 (1.36)

0.093

Allocation concealment mechanism

9

48 (0.69)

30 (0.73)

18 (0.63)

0.63

Implementation

10

36 (0.51)

31 (0.75)

5 (0.17)

0.001

Blinding

11a

268 (3.83)

197 (4.77)

71 (2.48)

<0.001

 

11b

8 (0.11)

5 (0.12)

3 (0.10)

1.000

Statistical methods

12a

4686 (67.00)

2604 (63.00)

2082 (72.77)

<0.001

Flow diagram

13a

20 (0.29)

11 (0.27)

9 (0.31)

0.709

 

13b

246 (3.52)

141 (3.41)

105 (3.67)

0.564

Recruitment

14a

5198 (74.32)

2899 (70.14)

2299 (80.36)

<0.001

Baseline data

15

445 (6.36)

232 (5.61)

213 (7.44)

0.002

Numbers analyzed

16

127 (1.82)

80 (1.94)

47 (1.64)

0.367

Outcomes and estimation

17a

89 (1.27)

58 (1.40)

31 (1.08)

0.241

 

17b

21 (0.30)

8 (0.19)

13 (0.45)

0.050

Harms

19

1830 (26.17)

1096 (26.52)

734 (25.66)

0.42

Limitations

20

572 (8.18)

356 (8.61)

216 (7.55)

0.11

Generalizability

21

187 (2.67)

115 (2.78)

72 (2.52)

0.498

Interpretation

22

6473 (92.55)

3806 (92.09)

2667 (93.22)

0.077

Registration

23

1 (0.01)

0 (0)

1 (0.03)

0.853

Protocol

24

1 (0.01)

0 (0)

1 (0.03)

0.853

Funding

25

413 (5.91)

270 (6.53)

143 (5.00)

0.007

Figure 2

CONSORT results of title, abstract, background and objectives in each year.

CONSORT: materials and methods

Description on the following items had obvious improvement in 2011–2012 over 2005–2009: inclusion and exclusion criteria of patients (4a) (65.26% vs 49.79%, P < 0.001), the place of collecting materials (4b) (79.48% vs 64.46%, P < 0.001). However, the proportions on the description of the patient distribution (3a) decreased (P = 0.011). Although the proportions on the description of interventions, outcomes and the calculated sample size were improved, there was no significant difference (Table 2). As shown in Figure 3, there is a fluctuation in the proportions on the description of these items during 2005–2012.
Figure 3

CONSORT results of materials and methods in each year.

CONSORT: randomization

Description on sequence generation (8a) also increased significantly (13.77% in 2005–2009 vs 19.85% in 2011–2012, P < 0.001). However, the proportion of reports with blinding (11a) decreased in 2011–2012 (4.77% in 2005–2009 vs 2.48% in 2011–2012, P < 0.001). Similar trend was observed for description on detailed implement process (10) (0.75% vs 0.17%, P = 0.001). Few reports described the allocation concealment mechanism (9) (Table 2). As shown in Figure 4, there is a fluctuation in the proportions on the description of these items from 2005 to 2012.
Figure 4

CONSORT results of ‘randomization’ in each year.

CONSORT: results

The proportion with detailed statistical methods (12a) was greater after 2010 (63.00% in 2005–2009 vs 72.77% in 2011–2012, P < 0.001). The proportion of reports with the dates of recruiting and follow-up (14a) was greater after 2010 (70.14% in 2005–2009 vs 80.36% in 2011–2012, P < 0.001). Although the proportion of papers that reported loss to follow-up (13b) and flow diagram (13a) increased after 2010, the quality remained to be improved. The proportion of reports with baseline data description (15) increased (P= 0.002), (Table 2). As shown in Figure 5, there is a fluctuation in the proportions of reports with the description of these items from 2005 to 2012 except recruiting and follow-up (14a).
Figure 5

CONSORT results of ‘results’ in each year.

CONSORT: discussion

There was no difference in proportions of papers reporting harms (19), limitations (20), generalizability (21) and interpretation (22) before and after 2010 (Table 2). As shown in Figure 6, there is a fluctuation in the proportions on the description of these items from 2005 to 2012.
Figure 6

CONSORT results of ‘discussion’ in each year.

CONSORT: other information

Only one paper reported the registration (23) or the protocol (24). The proportion of paper reporting fundings (25) decreased markedly during 2011–2012 compared to 2005–2009 (P = 0.007) (Table 2).

CONSORT: total score of each report

Figure 7 shows the distribution of the mean scores of reports before and after 2010, with 24 being the highest score. The scores range from 1 to 24, with most of them within the range of 4–11. Generally the scores of reports are low for both periods and the mean score of 2011–2012 is slightly higher (7.09 in 2005–2009 vs 7.70 in 2011–2012) (Figure 8). Figure 9 shows that the annual distributions of the reports with a specific score in each year are similar.
Figure 7

The distribution of the mean scores before and after 2010.

Figure 8

The mean score of publication of each year.

Figure 9

The annual distributions of the CONSORT score of reports.

Jadad score

There are very few papers with a score above 2. The mean scores of reports are similar for both periods (1.22 for 2005–2009 vs 1.25 for 2011–2012, P = 0.405, Figure 10). The annual mean scores are similar from 2005 to 2012 (P = 1.000, Figure 11).
Figure 10

The Jadad score before and after 2010. The scores of reports are similar for both periods (2005–2009 vs 2011–2012, P = 0.405).

Figure 11

The annual distributions of the Jadad score of reprts. The mean scores are similar from 2005 to 2012 (P =1.000)

Discussion

In the present study, we demonstrate that proportions of reports with descriptions of CONSORT items 1a, 2a, 4a, 4b, 8a, 12, 14a, 15 and 17b increase after 2010, while proportions of reports with descriptions of CONSORT items 1b, 2b, 3a, 10, 11a, and 25 decrease after 2010. And for most of the items, there is a fluctuation of proportion on description of the item from 2005 to 2012. These data indicate that publication of CONSORT has little, if any, influence on the most of the researchers reporting clinical trials in China.

TCM has been practiced in China for thousands of years. TCM doctors use herbal medicine to treat a variety of diseases. The medical herbs may be used singly or in combination. In the past decades, the effects of TCM have been evaluated in various animal models and the underlying mechanisms have also been explored in cellular, protein or DNA levels. Nevertheless, the efficiency of TCM should be demonstrated in RCTs, which is the top-level evidence for therapy. For example, Chansu, the skin and parotid venom glands of Bufo bufo gargarizans cantor, is a well-known TCM widely used for the treatment of a variety of tumors in China [34, 35]. Experimental studies suggested that Chansu and its active compounds exhibit significant anti-tumor activity via inhibiting cell proliferation, inducing apoptosis and cell arrest and inhibiting angiogenesis [36]. Further studies demonstrated that bufalin, one compound in Chansu, induced apoptosis of gastric cancer cells by inhibition of AKT signaling pathway [37] and inhibiting proliferation of hepatocellular carcinoma cells through inhibiting AKT/GSK3β/β-catenin/E-cadherin signaling pathway [38].

RCTs for TCM were first published in the 1980s [39]. Since then, a number of TCM RCTs have been published. However, the quality of the reports of the TCM RCTs were poor [3944]. For example, Fang et al. reported that only 13 trials in 338 RCTs reports had the detailed description on method of randomization [40]. In the present study, we identified that only 8 of 31 CONSORT items have significant improvements from 2005–2009 to 2011–2012. A detailed and informative introduction of background can make readers understand the purpose of the study. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria of patients will avoid the selection bias. Clear and definite description of intervention is critical for the study to be repeated. In particular, whether outcome assessments are blind has considerable implications for assessment of internal validity [45]. We found that 29.00% of the articles described the background from 2005 to 2012. Sequence generation was described in only 16.26% of the publications, blinding in 3.83% and calculation of simple size in 0.29%. Inadequate description of these items will make the results of the study incredible. Another problem was there were only 56 out of 6994 reports that had the term ‘randomize’ in their titles. Title is a very important part of an article. Researchers use title to screen potential studies in meta-analysis.

With regard to methodological items, calculation of sample size was done by only 20 reports out of 6994 reports. If the sample is too large, it would be a waste of time and money. The smaller number of patients will reduce statistical power and generate selection bias. There were 268 reports using blinding method. The proportion of description on blinding method decreased after 2010. Blinding, especially double-blinding, is challenging for studies in which the intervention is being randomized [46]. Inadequate measures to create and conceal the random allocation, selective attrition, and insufficient double-blinding have been theorized to bias the estimates of treatment effects in RCTs [47].

Reports on adverse events were obvious not detailed enough, which will overestimate the safety of TCM. In fact, the recorded information of TCM herbs in most classical books includes toxicities, incompatibilities between herbs, cautions, precautions and contraindications. Thus, contrary to a general misconception, toxicity data on Chinese herbs exist and are documented through clinical experience [48]. For example, cinnabar, which contains mercury sulfide, has been used in TCM for thousands of years and 40 cinnabar-containing traditional medicines are still used today. Absorbed mercury from cinnabar is mainly accumulated in the kidneys, resembling the disposition pattern of inorganic mercury. Following long-term use of cinnabar, renal dysfunction may occur [49].

In addition, the reporting of outcomes and ancillary analyses remained poor. For example, intention-to-treat analysis is advocated because it preserves the randomization process and allows for noncompliance and deviations from policy by clinicians [50]. There are only 9 in 6994 papers using intention-to-treat analysis.

Discussion is an important part of a report. The author(s) can discuss the advantages and generalizability of the treatment, as well as the limitations of the study there. As we noticed, few reports have an informative discussion (Table 2). Finally, only one report contained information about registration, another one report contained information of protocol.

According to Jadad scale, there were 188 reports which scores were over 2 points. There was no difference between publications before and after 2010. Thus, reporting of TCM RCTs improved very slowly in their quality. The average Jadad score was 1.25 during 2011–2012, compared to 1.22 during 2005–2009.

In the present study we chose the CNKI database as the database to avoid selection bias. The CNKI database is the most comprehensive database in China. It achieves the full-text publications of 1217 medical Chinese journals, including 26 journals for TCM and 18 for integrative TCM and modern Western medicine. In addition, two researchers assessed independently the quality of each report by reading its full text. This is in sharp contrast to the previous reports, which evaluated only one or several TCM journals, or evaluated publication on a specific disease [2429]. Thus the present study is the most comprehensive one on TCM RCTs.

Interestingly, we found that none of the manuscripts described change of the methods after trial commencement (Subitem 3b), change of trial outcomes after the trial commenced (Subitem 6b), interim analyses and stopping guidelines (Subitem 7b), premature discontinuation of the trial (Subitem 14b) and additional analyses (Subitem 18). The underlying reason is unknown.

Conclusions

Although some improvements have been made in reporting TCM RCTs, the pace remains slow. And there remains considerable room for further improvement. The problems include optimal design of randomization, the usage of blinding, the calculation of sample size, comparability of baseline information, the clear and definite inclusion and exclusion criteria, the usage of statistical method, the withdrawal and follow-up of patients and the records of adverse events. Doctors practicing TCM should be trained to write high-quality reports and active implementation of the CONSORT guidelines by journals is necessary to make the reports on TCM RCTs more credible and TCM be used more widely in the world as an alternative medicine. We also suggest that a bibliographic database of TCM RCTs, similar to AcuTrials(R), be developed to enhance the accessibility and quality of TCM RCTs [51].

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Fujian Provincial Natural Science Fund (No. 2013 J01379).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Oncology, Fujian Academy of Integrative Medicine, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
(2)
Department of Medical Oncology, Fujian Provincial Clinical College Affiliated with Fujian Medical University and Fujian Provincial Hospital
(3)
Department of Pharmacognosy, College of Pharmacy, Second Military Medical University of China

References

  1. Katz JN, Wright JG, Losina E: Clinical trials in orthopaedics research. Part II. Prioritization for randomized controlled clinical trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011, 93: e30-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg. 2011, 340: c332-Google Scholar
  3. Chan AW, Altman DG: Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet. 2005, 365: 1159-1162. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71879-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S: What is missing from de-scriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?. BMJ. 2008, 336: 1472-1474. 10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, Decullier E, Easterbrook PJ, Von Elm E, Gamble C, Ghersi D, Ioannidis JP, Simes J, Williamson PR: Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and out-come reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008, 3: e3081-10.1371/journal.pone.0003081.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG: CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010, 63: e1-e37. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996, 276: 637-639. 10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG: The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2001, 134: 657-662. 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C: Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA. 2002, 287: 2801-2804. 10.1001/jama.287.21.2801.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Mills EJ, Chow TW: Randomized controlled trials in long-term care residents with dementia: a systematic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2003, 4: 302-307. 10.1016/S1525-8610(04)70388-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hahn S, Puffer S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J: Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005, 5: 10-10.1186/1471-2288-5-10.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, Chan AW, Altman DG: The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ. 2010, 340: c723-10.1136/bmj.c723.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavahan DJ, McQuay HJ: Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials. 1996, 17: 1-12. 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ: Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2008, 88: 156-175. 10.2522/ptj.20070147.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tindle HA, Davis RB, Phillips RS, Eisenberg DM: Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997–2002. Altern Ther Health Med. 2005, 11: 42-49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen FP, Chen TJ, Kung YY, Chen YC, Chou LF, Chen FJ, Hwang SJ: Use frequency of traditional Chinese medicine in Taiwan. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007, 7: 26-10.1186/1472-6963-7-26.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Chung V, Wong E, Woo J, Lo SV, Griffiths S: Use of Traditional Chinese Medicine in the Hong Kong special administrative region of China. J Altern Complement Med. 2007, 13: 361-367. 10.1089/acm.2006.6152.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Burke A, Upchurch DM, Dye C, Chyu L: Acupuncture use in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey. J Altern Complement Med. 2006, 12: 639-648. 10.1089/acm.2006.12.639.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Wu C, Liao L, Yan X, Li M, Wu S, Wang J, Lin J, Li S, Gao L, DU J, Yang R: Effects of Yangxue Qingnao Granules on chronic cerebral circulation insufficiency: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled multicentre trial. Psychogeriatrics. 2013, 13: 29-34. 10.1111/j.1479-8301.2012.00423.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Chen Y, Fu DY, Chen Y, He YM, Fu XD, Xu YQ, Liu Y, Feng XT, Zhang T, Wang WJ: Effects of Chinese herbal medicine Yiqi Huaju Formula on hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Integr Med. 2013, 11: 184-194. 10.3736/jintegrmed2013031.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang TZ, Chen Y, He YM, Fu XD, Wang Y, Xu YQ, Yang HJ, Xue HL, Liu Y, Feng XT, Zhang T, Wang WJ: Effects of Chinese herbal medicine Yiqi Huaju Qingli Formula in metabolic syndrome patients with microalbuminuria: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. J Integr Med. 2013, 11: 175-183. 10.3736/jintegrmed2013032.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhang Y, Chang J, Chi HH, Mao B, Tang WF, Wang L, Huang SZ, Li TQ, Zhang RM: Randomized controlled trial on treatment of bronchial asthma of qi-deficiency cold syndrome type by pingchuan yiqi granule. Chin J Integr Med. 2007, 13: 27-32. 10.1007/s11655-007-0027-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wenjuan S, Yuehui Z, Wei L, Jing C, Ying Z, Ng EHY, Xiaoke W: Effects of tanshinone on hyperandrogenism and the quality of life in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: protocol of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. BMJ Open. 2013, 3: e003646-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Bian ZX, Li YP, Moher D, Dagenais S, Liu L, Wu TX, Miao JX, Kwan AK, Song L: Improving the quality of randomized controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine, part I: clinical trial design and method ology. J Chin Integr Med. 2006, 4: 120-129. 10.3736/jcim20060204. (in Chinese)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Bian ZX, Mohe RD, Dagenais S, Li YP, Liu L, Wu TX, Miao JX: Improving the quality of randomize d controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine, part II: control group design. J Chin Integr Med. 2006, 4: 130-136. 10.3736/jcim20060205. (in Chinese)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Bian ZX, Moher D, Dagenais S, Li YP, Wu TX, Liu L, Miao JX, Song L, Zhang HM: Improving the quality of randomized controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine, part IV: applying a revised CONSORT checklist to measure reporting quality. J Chin Integr Med. 2006, 4: 233-242. 10.3736/jcim20060303. (in Chinese)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Yu H, Han Y, Xu J, Zang M, Wen ZH: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials on treating chronic bronchitis with traditional Chinese medicine. Tradit Chin Res Clin Pharmacol. 2006, 17: 468-471.Google Scholar
  28. Sun J, Han K, Qian SC, You S: Assessment of randomized controlled trials published in the Chinese medical Journal from 2007 to 2008. Chin Med J. 2009, 122: 1477-1480.Google Scholar
  29. Xu L, Li J, Zhang MM, Ai CL, Wang L: Chinese authors do need CONSORT: Reporting quality assessment for five leading Chinese medical journals. Contemporary Clin Trials. 2008, 29: 727-730. 10.1016/j.cct.2008.05.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database. [http://oversea.cnki.net/kns55/default.aspx]
  31. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Berlin JA, Boutron I, Devereaux PJ, Dickersin K, Elbourne D, Ellenberg S, Gebski V, Goodman S, Gøtzsche PC, Groves T, Grunberg S, Haynes B, Hopewell S, James A, Juhn P, Middleton P, Minckler D, Montori VM, Mulrow C, Pocock S, Rennie D, Schriger DL, Simera I, Wager E, Clarke M, Guyatt G: CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trails. 2010, 11: 32-Google Scholar
  32. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Gφtzsche PC MV, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG: CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version). J Chin Integr Med. 2010, 8: 701-741.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Augestad KM, Berntsen G, Lassen K, Bellika JG, Wootton R, Lindsetmo RO: Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials inmedical informatics: a systematic review of CONSORT adherence in RCTs on clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012, 19: 13-21. 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000411.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Meng Z, Yang P, Shen Y, Bei W, Zhang Y, Ge Y, Newman RA, Cohen L, Liu L, Thornton B, Chang DZ, Liao Z, Kurzrock R: Pilot study of huachansu in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, nonsmall-cell lung cancer, or pancreatic cancer. Cancer. 2009, 115: 5309-5318. 10.1002/cncr.24602.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Qin TJ, Zhao XH, Yun J, Zhang LX, Ruan ZP, Pan BR: Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine-oxaliplatin combined with huachansu in patients with advanced gallbladder carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2008, 14: 5210-5216. 10.3748/wjg.14.5210.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Qi F, Li A, Inagaki Y, Kokudo N, Tamura S, Nakata M, Tang W: Antitumor activity of extracts and compounds from the skin of the toad Bufo bufo gargarizans Cantor. Int Immunopharmacol. 2011, 11: 342-349. 10.1016/j.intimp.2010.12.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Li D, Qu X, Hou K, Zhang Y, Dong Q, Teng Y, Zhang J, Liu Y: PI3K/Akt is involved in bufalin-induced apoptosis in gastric cancer cells. Anticancer Drugs. 2009, 20: 59-64. 10.1097/CAD.0b013e3283160fd6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Qiu DZ, Zhang ZJ, Wu WZ, Yang KY: Bufalin, a component in Chansu, inhibits proliferation and invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma cells. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2013, 13: 185-10.1186/1472-6882-13-185.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Mao B, Wang G, Fan T, Chen XD, Liu J, Wang L, Chang J, Ma JX, Guo J, Fu JJ, Li TQ: Assessing the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in traditional Chinese medicine. Chin J Evid-Based Med. 2007, 7: 880-887. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  40. Fang RH, Liao XY, Su QL, Li SQ, Deng XX: Evaluation of papers with randomized control trials published in clinical medicine in recent 16 years. West China Medical J. 2005, 20: 621-622. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  41. Li RQ, Liao XY, Fang RH, Li Y, Li SQ, Wang L: Methodological evaluation of randomized controlled clinical therapeutic trials published in Chinese National Medicine Journal in the past 20 years. West China Medical J. 2005, 20: 207-208. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  42. Chang J, Li TQ, Wan MH, Zhang Y: Quality assessment for randomized controlled trials published in four Acta of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Chin J Evid-Based Med. 2006, 6: 171-178. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  43. Dagenais S, Tricco AC, Bian ZX, Huang WH, Moher D: Critical appraisal of clinical studies in Chinese herbal medicine. J Chin Integrative Med. 2006, 4: 455-466. 10.3736/jcim20060504.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Jia YL, Huang FY, Zhang SK, Liang SW: Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials in Treating Coronary Heart Disease by Chinese Patent Medicine. CJITWM. 2012, 32: 560-568. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  45. Higgins JPT, Altman DG: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.2. Edited by: Higgins JPT, Green S. 2009, Oxford: Cochrane collaboration, 32-35.Google Scholar
  46. McCormick F, Cvetanovich GL, Kim JM, Harris JD, Gupta AK, Abrams GD, Romeo AA, Provencher CM: An assessment of the quality of rotator cuff randomized controlled trials: utilizing the Jadad score and CONSORT criteria. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013, 22: 1180-1185. 10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG: Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995, 273: 408-412. 10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Leung AY: Traditional toxicity documentation of Chinese Materia Medica—an overview. Toxicol Pathol. 2006, 34: 319-326. 10.1080/01926230600773958.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Liu J, Shi JZ, Yu LM, Goyer RA, Waalkes MP: Mercury in traditional medicines: is cinnabar toxicologically similar to common mercurials?. Exp Biol Med. 2008, 233: 810-817. 10.3181/0712-MR-336.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Hollis S, Campbell F: What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999, 319: 670-674. 10.1136/bmj.319.7211.670.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Marx BL, Milley R, Cantor D, Ackerman D, Hammerschlag R: AcuTrials(R): an online database of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of acupuncture. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2013, 13: 181-10.1186/1472-6882-13-181.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/14/362/prepub

Copyright

© Li et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement