Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional chinese medicine: a systematic review.
<h4>Background</h4>After the publication of the CONSORT 2010 statement, few studies have been conducted to assess the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on treatment of diabetes mellitus with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) published in Chinese journals.<h4>O...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2013-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070586 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849427338928848896 |
|---|---|
| author | Ping Wang Qin Xu Qi Sun Fang-Fang Fan Xue-Rui Guo Fei Guo |
| author_facet | Ping Wang Qin Xu Qi Sun Fang-Fang Fan Xue-Rui Guo Fei Guo |
| author_sort | Ping Wang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Background</h4>After the publication of the CONSORT 2010 statement, few studies have been conducted to assess the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on treatment of diabetes mellitus with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) published in Chinese journals.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the current situation of the reporting quality of RCTs in leading medical journals in China with the CONSORT 2010 statement as criteria.<h4>Methods</h4>The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) electronic database was searched for RCTs on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with TCM published in the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional & Western Medicine, and the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica from January to December 2011. We excluded trials reported as "animal studies", "in vitro studies", "case studies", or "systematic reviews". The CONSORT checklist was applied by two independent raters to evaluate the reporting quality of all eligible trials after discussing and comprehending the items thoroughly. Each item in the checklist was graded as either "yes" or "no" depending on whether it had been reported by the authors.<h4>Results</h4>We identified 27 RCTs. According to the 37 items in the CONSORT checklist, the average reporting percentage was 45.0%, in which the average reporting percentage for the "title and abstract", the "introduction", the "methods", the "results", the "discussion" and the "other information" was 33.3%, 88.9%, 36.4%, 54.4%, 71.6% and 14.8%, respectively. In the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional & Western Medicine, and the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica the average reporting percentage was 42.2%, 56.8%, and 46.0%, respectively.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The reporting quality of RCTs in these three journals was insufficient to allow readers to assess the validity of the trials. We recommend that editors require authors to use the CONSORT statement when reporting their trial results as a condition of publication. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-da11808f7d414844a09556a563a28e9d |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2013-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-da11808f7d414844a09556a563a28e9d2025-08-20T03:29:04ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032013-01-0187e7058610.1371/journal.pone.0070586Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional chinese medicine: a systematic review.Ping WangQin XuQi SunFang-Fang FanXue-Rui GuoFei Guo<h4>Background</h4>After the publication of the CONSORT 2010 statement, few studies have been conducted to assess the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on treatment of diabetes mellitus with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) published in Chinese journals.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the current situation of the reporting quality of RCTs in leading medical journals in China with the CONSORT 2010 statement as criteria.<h4>Methods</h4>The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) electronic database was searched for RCTs on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with TCM published in the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional & Western Medicine, and the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica from January to December 2011. We excluded trials reported as "animal studies", "in vitro studies", "case studies", or "systematic reviews". The CONSORT checklist was applied by two independent raters to evaluate the reporting quality of all eligible trials after discussing and comprehending the items thoroughly. Each item in the checklist was graded as either "yes" or "no" depending on whether it had been reported by the authors.<h4>Results</h4>We identified 27 RCTs. According to the 37 items in the CONSORT checklist, the average reporting percentage was 45.0%, in which the average reporting percentage for the "title and abstract", the "introduction", the "methods", the "results", the "discussion" and the "other information" was 33.3%, 88.9%, 36.4%, 54.4%, 71.6% and 14.8%, respectively. In the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional & Western Medicine, and the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica the average reporting percentage was 42.2%, 56.8%, and 46.0%, respectively.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The reporting quality of RCTs in these three journals was insufficient to allow readers to assess the validity of the trials. We recommend that editors require authors to use the CONSORT statement when reporting their trial results as a condition of publication.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070586 |
| spellingShingle | Ping Wang Qin Xu Qi Sun Fang-Fang Fan Xue-Rui Guo Fei Guo Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional chinese medicine: a systematic review. PLoS ONE |
| title | Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional chinese medicine: a systematic review. |
| title_full | Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional chinese medicine: a systematic review. |
| title_fullStr | Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional chinese medicine: a systematic review. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional chinese medicine: a systematic review. |
| title_short | Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional chinese medicine: a systematic review. |
| title_sort | assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional chinese medicine a systematic review |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070586 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT pingwang assessmentofthereportingqualityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsonthetreatmentofdiabetesmellituswithtraditionalchinesemedicineasystematicreview AT qinxu assessmentofthereportingqualityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsonthetreatmentofdiabetesmellituswithtraditionalchinesemedicineasystematicreview AT qisun assessmentofthereportingqualityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsonthetreatmentofdiabetesmellituswithtraditionalchinesemedicineasystematicreview AT fangfangfan assessmentofthereportingqualityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsonthetreatmentofdiabetesmellituswithtraditionalchinesemedicineasystematicreview AT xueruiguo assessmentofthereportingqualityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsonthetreatmentofdiabetesmellituswithtraditionalchinesemedicineasystematicreview AT feiguo assessmentofthereportingqualityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsonthetreatmentofdiabetesmellituswithtraditionalchinesemedicineasystematicreview |