Cited by 22Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Impact of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist on reporting of randomized clinical trials in traditional Chinese medicine

Liu, Xue‐ting, Zhang, Xin, Wen, Shu, Peng, Le, Hong, Qi, Kang, Deying·2015·Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Abstract

Objective: To examine the reporting characteristics and key methodological factors of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of traditional Chinese medicine and assess whether use of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is associated with improvement in the quality of reports of RCTs. Method: RCTs published in two major traditional Chinese medicine journals were retrieved and were systematically reviewed. Of those journals, one adopted the CONSORT statement (Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine (JCIM)) and one did not (Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine (CJIM)). Items within the CONSORT 2001 and the CONSORT 2010 statements were taken to develop a 63‐item coding manual. The Jadad scale was also used to assess methodological quality of RCTs. Two observers assessed the reporting of reports and extracted data independently. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. SPSS was used for all analyses. Results: A total of 76 RCTs were included for the analysis (38 from JCIM and 38 from CJIM). S ignificant improvements both in the overall quality of reporting (CONSORT score) and reporting of methodological items (Jadad scale) over time were observed in adopter journal (JCIM) (P = 0.001). Overall CONSORT score of studies published during 2010 to 2011 (post‐CONSORT) increased 15.30 averagely with 95%CI 8.34 to 22.26 (P = 0.001). Of those, items addressed on reporting of methodological quality were different significantly too. JCIM had more 1.30 items addressed than CJIM in average (95% CI 0.52 to 2.08, P = 0.003). In the multivariate analysis regression, the page length and CONSORT‐promoting status have statistically significant associated with the (P = 0.001 and P = 0.040, respectively). Conclusion: Although a large room needs to improve the reporting of randomized clinical trials in traditional Chinese medicine, the impact for improvement of reporting of TCM RCTs has been proven in some extent.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jebm.12173

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, X., Zhang, X., Wen, S., Peng, L., Hong, Q., & Kang, D.
Affiliations
  • Sichuan University (CN)
  • Department of Evidence‐based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital Sichuan University Chengdu China
Corresponding author
Kang, Deying
Venue
Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-11
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
192-208
ISSN
  • 1756-5383 (ISSN-L)
  • 1756-5391
OpenAlex
W1902675027
Cited by
22
References
64
Citations by year
2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
CONSORT statement, reporting quality, randomized controlled trials, traditional Chinese medicine, trial reporting guidelines, methodological quality, Jadad scale
MeSH terms
Humans, Medicine, Chinese Traditional, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Checklist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review