ArticleIntegrative medicine research2026
Risk of bias among Chinese-language randomized controlled trials on Chinese herbal medicine included in meta-analyses published in 2021-2022: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Integrative medicine research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Design, Conduct, and Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials of Chinese Herbal Medicine.JAMA network open · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The reliability of meta-analyses on Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) largely depends on the methodological quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study assessed the risk of bias (RoB) among Chinese-language CHM RCTs embedded in meta-analyses (MAs) published between 2021 and 2022. Methods: Chinese-language CHM MAs were identified through literature searches across seven databases (three international and four Chinese databases). RCTs were extracted from the eligible MAs and their methodological quality was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore associations between bibliographical characteristics and quality. Results: Of 2060 RCTs (published between 1997-2021), 93.0% ( Conclusion: The methodological quality of Chinese-language RCTs embedded in recently published MAs was found to be unsatisfactory, indicating their limited utility in informing clinical decision-making. There is an urgent need for enhancing clinical trial training for researchers, reviewers, and editors in China.
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.