ArticleBMJ open2013
Prospective registration, bias risk and outcome-reporting bias in randomised clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine: an empirical methodological study.
Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- High Outcome-Reporting Bias in Randomized-Controlled Trials of Acupuncture for Cancer Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Epidemiological Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.BMC medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2015Pooled it
- Massage therapy for essential hypertension: a systematic review.Journal of human hypertension · 2015Pooled it
- The effect of Chinese herbal medicine Jian Ling Decoction for the treatment of essential hypertension: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2015Pooled it
- Trial
- Design, Conduct, and Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials of Chinese Herbal Medicine.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Technological Advances in Anti-hair Loss and Hair Regrowth Cosmeceuticals: Mechanistic Breakthroughs and Industrial Prospects Driven by Multidisciplinary Collaborative Innovation.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Review
- Quality of reporting of integrative Chinese and Western medicine intervention in randomized controlled trials of ulcerative colitis: a review.Systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Demographic and psychometric predictors associated with engagement in risk-associated alternative healthcare behaviours.PloS one · 2023Article
- Development of a core outcome set for cardiovascular diabetology: a methodological framework.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- The characteristics of registered acupuncture clinical trials enrolling cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Review
- Assessment of the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials of massage.Chinese medicine · 2021Article
- Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion.Chinese medicine · 2020Article
- Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials for the Treatment of Eczema with Chinese Patent Medicine Based on the CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
- Reporting quality of Cochrane systematic reviews with Chinese herbal medicines.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Comparison of Clinical Trial Changes in Primary Outcome and Reported Intervention Effect Size Between Trial Registration and Publication.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) should be registered in a publicly accessible international trial register and report on all outcomes. We systematically assessed and evaluated TCM trials in registries with their subsequent publications.
objectiveTo describe the characteristics of TCM trials, estimate bias risk and outcome-reporting bias in clinical trials. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Fifteen trial registries were searched from their inception to July 2012 to identify randomised trials on TCM including Chinese herbs, acupuncture and/or moxibustion, cupping, tuina, qigong, etc. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data including TCM specialty and treated disease/conditions from the registries and searched for subsequent publications in PubMed and Chinese databases. We compared information in the registries of completed trials with any publications focusing on study design, sample size, randomisation, bias risk including reporting bias from the register protocol.
results1096 registered randomised trials were identified evaluating TCM, of which 505 were completed studies (46.1%). The most frequent conditions were pain (13.3%), musculoskeletal (11.7%), nervous (8.7%), digestive (7.1%), circulatory (6.5%), respiratory (6.3%), mental and behavioural disorders (6.2%) and cancer (6.0%). The trial register data identified parallel, phase II/III randomised trials with sample size estimations and blinding, but limited information about randomisation (sequence generation and allocation concealment). Comparing trial registration data of 115 completed trials (22.8%) with their subsequent 136 publications, inconsistencies were identified in one or more of the following: sample size (11%), outcome assessor blinding (37.5%), primary outcomes (29%) and safety (28%) reporting.
conclusionsIncreasing numbers of clinical trials investigating a variety of TCM interventions have been registered in international trial registries. The study design of registered TCM trials has improved in estimating sample size, use of blinding and placebos. However, selective outcome reporting is widespread and similar to conventional medicine and therefore study conclusions should be interpreted with caution.
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.