An assessment of the quality of randomised controlled trials conducted in China
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
The integrity of Chinese clinical studies has been under serious scrutiny because of no to extremely low drop-out rates.
“Second, the integrity of Chinese clinical studies has been under serious scrutiny because of a high proportion of studies that have reported ‘statistically significant’ results [10], no to extremely low drop-out rates [11, 12] and insufficient ethical considerations [10, 13].”
Published reports may not always accurately reflect the actual conduct of trials because of poor reporting.
“However, recent investigations into the quality of Chinese clinical trials have been based only on the published reports [1–4, 16, 17], which may not always accurately reflect the actual conduct of the trials because of poor reporting [11, 16, 17].”
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
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC2373774
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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