Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30249204›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

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.

Zheng Tong, Fangzhou Li, Yusuke Ogawa, Norio Watanabe, Toshi A Furukawa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 10 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, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Oxycodone for cancer-related pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Zheng TongDepartment of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine / School of Public Health, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan.
Fangzhou LiDepartment of Neurology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Kyoto, Japan.
Yusuke OgawaDepartment of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine / School of Public Health, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan.
Norio WatanabeDepartment of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine / School of Public Health, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan.
Toshi A FurukawaDepartment of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine / School of Public Health, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan. furukawa@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0003-2159-3776

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe are witnessing an exponential increase in the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported from mainland China. The increase is particularly notable in the field of new generation antidepressants and antipsychotics. Several previous studies have raised doubts regarding their quality. However, the quality of most recent RCTs published in China may have improved.

methodsWe searched RCTs that examined new generation antidepressants and antipsychotics published between 2013 and 2016 in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the largest database of scientific publications in China. We interviewed the authors of a random subset of the identified references. We assessed the methodological rigor of each study based on the published reports and telephone interviews with the authors using six methodological domains adapted from the Cochrane's risk of bias tool.

resultsThe final sample consisted of 138 studies, for which we interviewed 58 authors; the authors of 51 studies declined the interview, and the authors of 29 studies could not be contacted. The 51 studies with refused interviews were significantly less likely to be reported from university-affiliated hospitals and were less likely to be published in Chinese core journals. Based on the published reports, most of the 58 studies were assessed to be at unclear risk of bias in most methodological domains. After the interview, only 10 studies were assessed to be at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment. Assuming that the studies for which the authors declined interviews had an unclear risk, the proportion of RCTs at low risk of bias in both sequence generation and allocation concealment was 9.2% (10/109, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.0 to 16.2). The interviews indicated that the studies were at high risk of bias for most of the other domains.

conclusionIn general, RCTs that evaluate new generation antidepressants or antipsychotics and are indexed in the CNKI continue to be of low quality. When conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this field, it would be wise to include a specialist from China as a coresearcher to help assess the risk of bias in the identified studies.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyAntidepressive AgentsAntipsychotic AgentsChinaDatabases, FactualHumansInterviews as TopicPublicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTotal Quality ManagementAntidepressive AgentsAntipsychotic AgentsAntidepressive agentsAntipsychotic agentsChinaRandomized controlled trialsResearch integrityRisk of bias

Identifiers

PMID30249204
PMCPMC6154421

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.