ReviewTrials2015
Quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials on recurrent spontaneous abortion in China.
Review in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is robot-assisted pedicle screw placement really superior to conventional surgery? An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.EFORT open reviews · 2024Article
- A probe into effect of Shoutai pill on endometrial receptivity.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018Article
- Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2018Review
- Assessing the quality of reports about randomized controlled trials of scalp acupuncture combined with another treatment for stroke.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2017Article
- Article
- Factors associated with spontaneous abortion: a cross-sectional study of Chinese populations.Reproductive health · 2017Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite increasing numbers of RCTs done in China, detailed information on the quality of Chinese RCTs is still missing. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of RSA RCTs and to identify significant predictors of reporting quality.
methodsA literature review was conducted with the aim of identifying published RCTs on RSA conducted in China. In order to rate the report quality, we scored 1 for the item of CONSORT 2010 if it was reported and 0 if it was not stated or unclear. An overall quality score (OQS) with a range of 0-15 and a key methodological index score (MIS) with a range of 0-3 were calculated for each trial.
resultsA total of 98 relevant RCTs were included in the final analysis. The median OQS was 7, with a minimum of 1 and maximum of 12. The general level of OQS was not high, especially among 'sample size,' 'baseline data,' 'outcomes and estimation,' and 'ancillary analyses,' all of which had a positive rate of less than 10%. The median MIS was 1 with a minimum of 0 and maximum of 1. 'Allocation concealment,' 'blinding,' and 'intention-to-treat analysis' were mentioned in 1 (1%), 1 (1%) and 69 (70%) of the studies, respectively. In univariate analysis, funding was the only factor associated with an increased OQS. Specifically, the mean OQS increased by approximately 1.52 for manuscripts supported by funding (95% CI: 0.12 - 2.92; p = 0.03). With regard to the MIS, no association was found for any variable.
conclusionRCTs of RSA conducted in China need improvement in order to meet the level of "reporting quality" required by the CONSORT statement.
Indexed as
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.