Quality Assessment for Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Four Acta of Traditional Chinese Medicine

Objective To assess the quality of the published randomized controlled trials published in Journal of Beijing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (JBUTCM), Acta Universitatis Traditionis Medicalis Sinensis Pharmacologiaeque Shanghai (AUTMSPS), Journal of Guangdong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (JGUTCM), and Journal of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (JCUTCM) from 2000 to 2005. Method Guided by the Cochrane Center hand-searching guidelines, we searched 24 volumes (111 issues) of the four journals. The data were extracted according to the principles of clinical epidemiology and consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT), as well as an evaluation scale for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The data were managed by descriptive analysis and uniformity test. Results There were 365 RCTs. The diagnostic criteria were reported in 297 trials (81.37%). The inclusion and exclusion criteria were reported in 143 trials (39.18%) and 132 trials (36.16%), perspectively, None mentioned the estimation of sample size. The randomization and allocation concealment were reported in 70 trials (19.18%) and 9 trials, perspectively. The baseline data were described in 292 trials (80.00%). Blinding was mentioned in 35 trials (9.59%).Withdrawal occurred in 20 trials (5.48%). Informed consent was acquired in 2 trials. Adverse drug reactions were described in 97 trails (26.58%). Conclusion There are deficiencies in the reporting of these RCTs, Most of the trials do not describe the randomization, only a few trials use the allocation concealment and blinded method, no description of comparability of baseline data, most of the trials do not report the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and none estimate the sample size. These problems indicate that it is necessary to improve the quality of clinical research in Chinese medicine and pharmacology.