Cited by 75Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

An assessment of the quality of randomised controlled trials conducted in China

Open access
Zhang, Dalu, Yin, Peng, Freemantle, Nick, Jordan, Rachel, Zhong, Nanshan, Cheng, KK·2008·Trials

Abstract

Background: Despite the rapid increase in research in China, little is known about the quality of clinical trials conducted there. Methods: A systematic review and critical appraisal of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in China and published in 2004 was undertaken to describe their characteristics, assess the quality of their reporting, and where possible, the quality of their conduct. Randomised controlled trials in all disease areas and types of interventions, which took place in China and included Chinese citizens were identified using PubMed and hand searching the Journal Series of the Chinese Medical Association. Quality was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from the CONSORT statement. Results: Three hundred and seven RCTs were included. One hundred and ninety-nine (64.8%) failed to report methods of randomization and 254 (82.4%) did not mention blinding of either participants or investigators. Reporting of baseline characteristics, primary outcome and length of follow-up was inadequate in a substantial proportion of studies. Fewer than 11% of RCTs mentioned ethical approval and only 18.0% adequately discussed informed consent. However, dropout rates were very favourable with nearly 44% of trials reporting a zero dropout rate. Conclusion: Reporting of RCTs in China requires substantial improvement to meet the targets of the CONSORT statement. The conduct of Chinese RCTs cannot be directly inferred from the standard of reporting; however without good reporting the methods of the trials cannot be clearly ascertained.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1745-6215-9-22

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 75

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. He Q Wang C Lin M Xue C The analysis of recognition of respiratory physician on evidence based medicine Chinese Journal of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease 2004 27 460 462

Authors
Zhang, D., Yin, P., Freemantle, N., Jordan, R., Zhong, N., & Cheng, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Freemantle, Nick
Venue
Trials
Published
2008-04-24
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
22-22
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969634300
Cited by
75
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 10
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, trial quality, reporting quality, CONSORT statement, China, research ethics, informed consent, blinding, randomization methods, dropout rates, clinical trial conduct

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