提高中草药随机对照试验的质量Ⅰ:临床试验设计和方法学

目的:通过对中草药临床随机对照试验的设计及方法学进行质量评价,探讨如何提高中草药临床试验的质量。方法:文献检索2005年7月前发表于Cochrane图书馆的中草药系统评价共11篇,包含167个中草药临床随机对照试验。质量评价方法采用修订版CONSORT声明9项指标以及中草药剂型及质量控制标准指标。结果:所有167个临床试验都含有试验目的、方法、第1结局指标、统计学方法及中药剂型;其中163(97.6%)个临床试验说明了研究对象的纳入标准,只有26(15.6%)个临床试验说明了研究对象的排除标准;只有14(8.4%)个临床试验详细说明了随机序列的产生方法;4(2.4%)个临床试验提及了随机分配隐藏;绝大部分的临床试验(86.8%)属于开放性的,只有13.2%的临床试验采用了盲法设计;只有1个临床试验在试验前进行了样本含量的计算;在中草药剂型方面,45.5%的临床试验使用的是汤剂或中药茶包,只有1个临床试验提及了制剂的质量控制。在167个临床试验中,所有质量评价指标的涉及率只有36.0%。结论:现阶段中草药临床随机对照试验的质量还很低。建议:(1)试验设计者及实施者必须接受正规的临床试验基础知识的培训;(2)推荐采用临床试验设计流程图,逐一解决临床试验过程中的关键问题;(3)在方案正式实施前进行预试验,并根据预试验的结果对临床试验设计方案进行调整;(4)对临床试验设计的最终方案进行注册登记,并预先发表(最好是网上发表)临床试验设计方案;(5)广泛开展国际合作,特别是与对中医药研究感兴趣的国际知名学术研究机构进行合作,以提高中草药临床研究的质量。

Improving the quality of randomized controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine, part Ⅰ: clinical trial design and methodology

Objective: To discuss the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) with respect to design and methodology, and provide suggestions for further improvement in future clinical trials. Methods: A search of the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify RCTs of CHM on line in July 2005. Quality of the RCTs was assessed using a 11-item checklist modified from the revised CONSORT statement, with 2 items specific to CHM (i.e. herb preparation form and quality control of herbs). Results: The search yielded 167 RCTs that were selected for assessment. All trials included statements about the interventions, objectives, primary outcome design, statistical methods, and herb preparation form. Although 163 (97.6%) trials reported inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria were only reported in 26 (15.6%) trials. Fewer than 10% of trials clearly stated the random allocation sequence generation methods, and only 2.4% mentioned allocation concealment. The vast majority (86.8%) of trials were open-label, while only 13.2% used blinding. Almost half (45.5%) administered the CHM intervention as a tea or decoction. Only one trial (0.6%) reported a sample size calculation, and a single trial (0.6%) discussed quality control of the CHM intervention. Conclusion: The overall methodologic quality of RCTs in CHM was poor. It is essential to improve the design of future RCTs in this clinical area. Recommendations: (1) Investigator conducting RCTs should have formal training about clinical trial design; (2) A flow chart is recommended to ensure that all essential steps of clinical trial design are included. (3) Conducting pilot studies prior to RCTs may help improve their design; (4) Registration of clinical trials and publishing their protocols prior to enrolment may reduce publication bias and solicit peer reviews of the proposed design; (5) Collaboration between CHM investigators and traditional medicine academic research centers interested in integrative medicine may lead to quality improvement of RCTs of CHM.