Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25256890›Full record

SynthesisBMC complementary and alternative medicine2014

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 Li, Zhenhua Liu, Ruiqi Chen, Dan Hu, Wenjuan Li, Xiajing Li, Xuzheng Chen, Baokang Huang, Lianming Liao

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The use of complementary and integrative therapies as adjunct interventions during radiotherapy: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. The Efficacy ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2016
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jinnong Li
Zhenhua Liu
Ruiqi Chen
Dan Hu
Wenjuan Li
Xiajing Li
Xuzheng Chen
Baokang Huang
Lianming LiaoDepartment of Oncology, Fujian Academy of Integrative Medicine, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou 350112, PR China. llm@fjtcm.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsDATA 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.

resultsA 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).

conclusionsAlthough 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.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDrugs, Chinese HerbalHumansMedicine, Chinese TraditionalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDrugs, Chinese Herbal

Identifiers

PMID25256890
PMCPMC4192762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.