ArticleTrials2008
An assessment of the quality of randomised controlled trials conducted in China.
Article in Trials, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Transitional discharge interventions for people with schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic review and pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials in countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Methods and quality assessment.Saudi medical journal · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Traditional Chinese herbal medicine for vascular dementia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- The quality of reports of medical and public health research from Palestinian institutions: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2017Pooled it
- Prone position for acute respiratory failure in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- A systematic review of Chinese randomized clinical trials of SSRI treatment of depression.BMC psychiatry · 2014Pooled it
- Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2014Pooled it
- Content and quality of 10,000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 60 years.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2013Pooled it
- A Response to: Letter to the Editor Regarding Effects of Manual Acupuncture Versus Sham Acupuncture in patients with Post-Stroke Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Neurology and therapy · 2025Article
- Analysis of control arms in oncology randomised trials in Brazil: a cross-sectional study.BMJ oncology · 2025Article
- Antimanic Efficacy, Tolerability, and Acceptability of Clonazepam: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Globalisation of industry-sponsored clinical trials for breast, lung and colon cancer research: trends, threats and opportunities.BMJ oncology · 2023Article
- Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists for psychosis: protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis of human and non-human studies.Wellcome open research · 2023Article
- Participation of Lower and Upper Middle-Income Countries in Clinical Trials Led by High-Income Countries.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- [Improving clinical research and stepping forward to a new era of developing evidence based guidelines].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2020Article
- Systematic review on the quality of randomized controlled trials from Saudi Arabia.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019Article
- Quality of randomized controlled trials of new generation antidepressants and antipsychotics identified in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI): a literature and telephone interview study.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Implementing a larviciding efficacy or effectiveness control intervention against malaria vectors: key parameters for success.Parasites & vectors · 2018Review
- Eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA®) as a primary dressing on painful chronic leg ulcers: a pilot randomised controlled trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the rapid increase in research in China, little is known about the quality of clinical trials conducted there.
methodsA systematic review and critical appraisal of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in China and published in 2004 was undertaken to describe their characteristics, assess the quality of their reporting, and where possible, the quality of their conduct. Randomised controlled trials in all disease areas and types of interventions, which took place in China and included Chinese citizens were identified using PubMed and hand searching the Journal Series of the Chinese Medical Association. Quality was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from the CONSORT statement.
resultsThree hundred and seven RCTs were included. One hundred and ninety-nine (64.8%) failed to report methods of randomization and 254 (82.4%) did not mention blinding of either participants or investigators. Reporting of baseline characteristics, primary outcome and length of follow-up was inadequate in a substantial proportion of studies. Fewer than 11% of RCTs mentioned ethical approval and only 18.0% adequately discussed informed consent. However, dropout rates were very favourable with nearly 44% of trials reporting a zero dropout rate.
conclusionReporting of RCTs in China requires substantial improvement to meet the targets of the CONSORT statement. The conduct of Chinese RCTs cannot be directly inferred from the standard of reporting; however without good reporting the methods of the trials cannot be clearly ascertained.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.