IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0070586.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus with Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Ping Wang
  • Qin Xu
  • Qi Sun
  • Fang-fang Fan
  • Xue-rui Guo
  • Fei Guo

Abstract

Background: 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. Objective: To investigate the current situation of the reporting quality of RCTs in leading medical journals in China with the CONSORT 2010 statement as criteria. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ping Wang & Qin Xu & Qi Sun & Fang-fang Fan & Xue-rui Guo & Fei Guo, 2013. "Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus with Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-11, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0070586
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070586
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070586
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070586&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0070586?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kerry Dwan & Douglas G Altman & Juan A Arnaiz & Jill Bloom & An-Wen Chan & Eugenia Cronin & Evelyne Decullier & Philippa J Easterbrook & Erik Von Elm & Carrol Gamble & Davina Ghersi & John P A Ioannid, 2008. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-31, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schaub, Jason & Stander, Willem J. & Montgomery, Paul, 2022. "LGBTQ+ Young People’s Health and Well-being Experiences in Out-of-home Social Care: A scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    2. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin & Janna Heider, 2015. "A Study of Outcome Reporting Bias Using Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(1), pages 239-262.
    3. Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    4. Joseph S Ross & Gregory K Mulvey & Elizabeth M Hines & Steven E Nissen & Harlan M Krumholz, 2009. "Trial Publication after Registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: A Cross-Sectional Analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-9, September.
    5. Wynanda A van Enst & Rob J P M Scholten & Lotty Hooft, 2012. "Identification of Additional Trials in Prospective Trial Registers for Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-5, August.
    6. Ewelina Rogozińska & Elizabeth Gargon & Rocío Olmedo-Requena & Amani Asour & Natalie A M Cooper & Claire L Vale & Janneke van’t Hooft, 2020. "Methods used to assess outcome consistency in clinical studies: A literature-based evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, July.
    7. Elizabeth Gargon & Binu Gurung & Nancy Medley & Doug G Altman & Jane M Blazeby & Mike Clarke & Paula R Williamson, 2014. "Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.
    8. Jamie J Kirkham & Doug G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2010. "Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    9. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    10. Dongying Li & Tess Menotti & Yizhen Ding & Nancy M. Wells, 2021. "Life Course Nature Exposure and Mental Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Future Directions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-28, May.
    11. Amin Haghnejad & Mahboobeh Farahati, 2024. "An overview of meta-analytic methods for economic research," Papers 2412.10608, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2025.
    12. Thomas Pfeiffer & Lars Bertram & John P A Ioannidis, 2011. "Quantifying Selective Reporting and the Proteus Phenomenon for Multiple Datasets with Similar Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-7, March.
    13. Ana Virgolino & Osvaldo Santos & Joana Costa & Mónica Fialho & Ivo Iavicoli & Tiina Santonen & Hanna Tolonen & Evangelia Samoli & Klea Katsouyanni & Georgios Baltatzis & Flavia Ruggieri & Annalisa Abb, 2021. "Challenges to Evidence Synthesis and Identification of Data Gaps in Human Biomonitoring," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-11, March.
    14. Michal Kicinski, 2013. "Publication Bias in Recent Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
    15. Carl Berning & Bernd Weiß, 2016. "Publication bias in the German social sciences: an application of the caliper test to three top-tier German social science journals," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 901-917, March.
    16. Erick H Turner & Andrea Cipriani & Toshi A Furukawa & Georgia Salanti & Ymkje Anna de Vries, 2022. "Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(1), pages 1-21, January.
    17. Thomas J. Kniesner & W. Kip Viscusi, 2023. "Compensating Differentials for Occupational Health and Safety Risks: Implications of Recent Evidence," Research in Labor Economics, in: 50th Celebratory Volume, volume 50, pages 83-116, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    18. Carina Benstoem & Ajay Moza & Rüdiger Autschbach & Christian Stoppe & Andreas Goetzenich, 2015. "Evaluating Outcomes Used in Cardiothoracic Surgery Interventional Research: A Systematic Review of Reviews to Develop a Core Outcome Set," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    19. Mangirdas Morkunas & Elzė Rudienė & Lukas Giriūnas & Laura Daučiūnienė, 2020. "Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, October.
    20. Michał Krawczyk, 2015. "The Search for Significance: A Few Peculiarities in the Distribution of P Values in Experimental Psychology Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0070586. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.