Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38062492›Full record

ReviewSystematic reviews2023

Quality of reporting of integrative Chinese and Western medicine intervention in randomized controlled trials of ulcerative colitis: a review.

Jialing Zhang, Jiashuai Deng, Nana Wang, Ping Wang, Ji Li, Yunhai Wang, Wanting Cui, Feng Liang, Peijin Chen, Juan Wang and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jialing Zhang *Hong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinical Study Centre, Chinese EQUATOR Centre, School of Chinese Medicine, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Hong Kong), Hong Kong Baptist University, HKSAR, China.
Jiashuai Deng *School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Nana WangHong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinical Study Centre, Chinese EQUATOR Centre, School of Chinese Medicine, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Hong Kong), Hong Kong Baptist University, HKSAR, China.
Ping WangChina Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Xiyuan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Ji LiDepartment of Pediatrics, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guang'anmen Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yunhai WangCollege of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China.
Wanting CuiCollege of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China.
Feng LiangHong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinical Study Centre, Chinese EQUATOR Centre, School of Chinese Medicine, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Hong Kong), Hong Kong Baptist University, HKSAR, China.
Peijin ChenHong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinical Study Centre, Chinese EQUATOR Centre, School of Chinese Medicine, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Hong Kong), Hong Kong Baptist University, HKSAR, China.
Juan WangHong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinical Study Centre, Chinese EQUATOR Centre, School of Chinese Medicine, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Hong Kong), Hong Kong Baptist University, HKSAR, China.
Fei HanDepartment of Pediatrics, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guang'anmen Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chun Pong ChanDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, Hong Kong Baptist University, HKSAR, China.
Aiping LyuHong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinical Study Centre, Chinese EQUATOR Centre, School of Chinese Medicine, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Hong Kong), Hong Kong Baptist University, HKSAR, China.
Zhaoxiang BianHong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinical Study Centre, Chinese EQUATOR Centre, School of Chinese Medicine, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Hong Kong), Hong Kong Baptist University, HKSAR, China. bianzxiang@gmail.com.
Xuan ZhangHong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinical Study Centre, Chinese EQUATOR Centre, School of Chinese Medicine, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Hong Kong), Hong Kong Baptist University, HKSAR, China. zhangxuan@hkbu.edu.hk.ORCID 0000-0002-9230-9210
Hong Kong Baptist University · HKChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNTianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNBeijing University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

China Center for Evidence Based Traditional Chinese Medicine 2020YJSZX-5Chinese Medicine Development Fund 20B2/027AHealth@InnoHK Initiative Fund of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government ITC RC/IHK/4/7
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegrative Chinese and Western medicine (ICWM) is commonly used for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) in clinical practice. However, it is unclear whether the details of ICWM interventions, such as selection rationale, implementation design, and potential interactions, were adequately reported. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the quality of reporting in the ICWM interventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of UC and to identify the common problems if any.

methodsThrough a search of 10 international electronic databases, we identified RCTs of UC with ICWM interventions published in English or Chinese from the inception date of each database up to 16 June 2023. Literature screening was strictly conducted based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework. The general characteristics of the included studies were described. The quality of reporting was assessed according to three checklists, including the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) with 36 items (except for one item 1b about abstract), the CONSORT for Abstracts (17 items), and a self-designed ICWM-related checklist (27 items covering design rationale, intervention details, outcome assessments, and analysis). The reporting scores of RCTs published before and after 2010 were compared.

resultsA total of 1458 eligible RCTs were included. For the reporting compliance, the median score (interquartile ranges) of the CONSORT (72 score in total), the CONSORT for Abstract (34 score), and ICWM-related (54 score) items was 21 (18-25), 13 (12-15), and 18 (15-21), respectively. Although the time period comparisons showed that reporting quality of included publications improved significantly after the CONSORT 2010 issued (P < 0.01), more than 50% of items were evaluated as poor quality (reporting rate < 65%) among each checklist, especially in the CONSORT for Abstract and ICWM-specific items.

conclusionAlthough CONSORT appears to have enhanced the reporting of RCTs in UC, the quality of ICWM specifics is variable and in need of improvement. Reporting guidelines of the ICWM recommendations should be developed to improve their quality.

Indexed as

Colitis, UlcerativeChecklistHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePublicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCONSORT guidelineIntegrative Chinese and Western medicine (ICWM)Randomized controlled trial (RCT)Reporting qualityUlcerative colitis (UC)

Identifiers

PMID38062492
PMCPMC10704853
OpenAlexW4389461930

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.