Current situation on the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in 5 leading Chinese medical journals

Objective： The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials （CONSORT） statement has already proved to be an efficient standard for reporting quality of randomized controlled trials （RCTs）. However, most of the Chinese medical journals have not endorsed the CONSORT statement. The current situation about the reporting quality of RCTs in Chinese medical journals is still unclear. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs on papers published in 5 leading Chinese medical journals. Methods： We evaluated 232 original RCT papers using a reporting quality scale based on CONSORT statement from 2001 to 2006 in 5 Chinese medical journals （Journal type 1） without adoption of CONSORT and Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine （Journal type 2） which adopted CONSORT in 2004. We measured the inclusion of 26 items for the reporting quality scale and 6 core items of each RCT report, gave score to each item and calculated the total score obtained in each report and the proportion of reports including individual items. The reporting quality of RCT trials from 2001 to 2003 （pre-adoption period） was compared with that from 2004 to 2006 （post-adoption period）. Results： The average reporting quality of RCTs was moderate （mean score, 15.18）, and the mean score of the 6 core items was low （mean score, 1.09） in 5 leading journals. The difference in the total score and the score of the 6 core items between pre-adoption period （2001-2003） and post-adoption period （2004-2006） was statistically significant （P=0.003; P=0.000）. Interaction between journal type and period was not significant （F=0.76; P=0.383）. We concluded that the change tendency of reporting quality between Journal type 1 and 2 was not different. But as to the core items of sequence concealment and intention-to-treat analysis, the increases were greater for Journal type 2 when evaluated against Journal type 1 （P=0.038; P=0.016）. Conclusion： The reporting quality of RCT trials in 5 leading Chinese medical journals is improving. However, the lack of important items in RCT trials remains a serious problem. We recommend the endorsement of the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials statement in Chinese medical journals and the continuing education on evidence-based medicine in China.     

CONSORT 2010说明与详述：报告平行对照随机临床试验指南的更新

大量证据显示随机对照临床试验（randomised controlled trial,RCT）的报告质量不理想。报告不透明,则读者既不能评判试验结果是否真实可靠,也不能从中提取可用于系统综述的信息。最近的方法学分析表明,报告不充分和设计不合理与对治疗效果产生评价偏倚有关。这种系统误差对RCT损害严重,而RCT正是以其能减少或避免偏倚而被视为评价干预措施的金标准。为了提高RCT的报告质量,一个由专家和编辑组成的工作组制定了临床试验报告的统一标准（Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials,CONSORT）声明。CONSORT声明于1996年首次发表,并于2001年更新。声明由对照检查清单和流程图组成,供作者在报告RCT时使用。许多核心医学期刊和主要国际性编辑组织都已认可CONSORT声明。该声明促进了对RCT的严格评价和解释。2001年,在对CONSORT进行修订时,人们就已经清楚地认识到,解释和说明制定CONSORT声明的原理,有助于研究人员等撰写或评价临床试验报告。一篇CONSORT说明与详述文章于2001年同2001版CONSORT声明一起发表。2007年1月的专家会议之后,对CONSORT声明作了进一步修订并已发表,即＂CONSORT2010声明＂。这次更新对原版对照检查清单作了文字上的修改,使其更为明晰,并收入了与一些新近才认识到的主题相关的建议,如选择性报告结局产生的偏倚。说明与详述文件旨在加强人们对CONSORT声明的理解、应用和传播,这次也作了大量修订,对每一项新增或更新的清单条目的含义和增改理由进行了解释,提供了优秀的报告实例,还尽可能地提供了相关的经验性研究的参考文献。文中收入了若干流程图实例。＂CONSORT2010声明＂、其说明与详述文件,以及相关网站（www.consort-statement.org）,对于改进随机临床试验报告必将有所裨益。     

Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials

CONTEXT: Diagrams of the flow of participants through a clinical trial are recommended in the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement, but it is unclear whether such flow diagrams improve the quality of trial reports. OBJECTIVE: To examine the information contributed by flow diagrams and the completeness of reporting overall in reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 5 general and internal medicine journals. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of 270 reports of RCTs published in 1998 in the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM; n = 19), BMJ (n = 42), JAMA (n = 45), The Lancet (n = 81), and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM; n = 83). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of reports that included a flow diagram, information provided in flow diagrams, and completeness of reporting about flow of participants overall in flow diagrams or text. RESULTS: A total of 139 reports (51.5%) of RCTs included a flow diagram, but this varied widely among journals (AIM, 21.0%; BMJ, 38.1%; JAMA, 80.0%; The Lancet, 93.8%; and NEJM, 8.4%). Diagrams generally provided useful information, but only 73 (52.5%) included the number of participants who received allocated interventions and only 32 (23.0%) included the number of participants included in the analysis. In logistic regression analysis, overall completeness of reporting about flow of study participants was associated with publication of a flow diagram. CONCLUSIONS: Flow diagrams are associated with improved quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. However, the structure of current flow diagrams is less than ideal. We propose a revised flow diagram that includes all important counts through the stages of parallel group trials.     

采用CONSORT和STRICTA评价针刺治疗糖尿病胃轻瘫随机对照试验报告质量

[目的] 采用试验报告统一标准(CONSORT)和报告针刺临床试验中干预措施(STRICTA)标准评价针刺治疗糖尿病胃轻瘫随机对照试验的报告质量。 [方法] 计算机检索Cochrane 图书馆临床对照试验数据库、PubMed、中国知识基础设施工程、维普等数据库。文种限制为中英文。纳入针刺治疗糖尿病胃轻瘫的随机对照试验, 并采用CONSORT声明和STRICTA标准进行报告质量评价。[结果] 共纳入针刺治疗糖尿病胃轻瘫随机对照研究28篇文献。根据CONSORT声明和STRICTA标准对纳入文献进行分析, 无文献提及随机分配方案的隐藏、样本量的计算方法和治疗师资历。大部分研究对随机方法描述不清、盲法使用率低、未使用流程图、不良反应报道少、针刺细节报道不充分等问题。[结论] 目前针刺治疗糖尿病胃轻瘫的研究报告质量普遍较低。今后应采用国际公认的CONSORT声明和STRICTA标准对针刺疗法进行规范报告。     

提高中草药随机对照试验的质量Ⅳ:采用修改后的CONSORT条目评价临床随机对照试验报告的质量

目的:以Cochrane图书馆中有关中草药治疗2型糖尿病系统评价中的66个临床随机对照试验为基础,分析在中草药临床随机对照试验研究报告中存在的问题,以及如何提高临床随机对照试验报告的质量。方法:文献检索2005年7月前发表于Cochrane图书馆的纳入随机对照试验最多的系统评价—中草药治疗2型糖尿病系统评价,共包含66个临床随机对照试验。以原有的CONSORT条目为基础,增加有关中医药方面的5项内容,即中医证型、组方依据、复方组成、制剂类型及质量控制。修订后的CONSORT评估表共包含63项条目,并以此为标准评估66篇临床随机对照试验报告的质量。结果:按修改后的CONSORT条目,66篇临床随机对照试验的总体报告率为19%~44%,中位数32%(标准差8%)。结论:中草药临床随机对照试验报告的总体质量较低。建议:以CONSORT条目为基础,进行中草药临床随机对照试验报告规范化的研究。同时建议中医药类杂志的编辑要求作者按照规范格式发表临床研究报告。     

Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in medical informatics: a systematic review of CONSORT adherence in RCTs on clinical decision support

Introduction

The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) were published to standardize reporting and improve the quality of clinical trials. The objective of this study is to assess CONSORT adherence in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of disease specific clinical decision support (CDS).

Methods

A systematic search was conducted of the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. RCTs on CDS were assessed against CONSORT guidelines and the Jadad score.

Result

32 of 3784 papers identified in the primary search were included in the final review. 181 702 patients and 7315 physicians participated in the selected trials. Most trials were performed in primary care (22), including 897 general practitioner offices. RCTs assessing CDS for asthma (4), diabetes (4), and hyperlipidemia (3) were the most common. Thirteen CDS systems (40%) were implemented in electronic medical records, and 14 (43%) provided automatic alerts. CONSORT and Jadad scores were generally low; the mean CONSORT score was 30.75 (95% CI 27.0 to 34.5), median score 32, range 21–38. Fourteen trials (43%) did not clearly define the study objective, and 11 studies (34%) did not include a sample size calculation. Outcome measures were adequately identified and defined in 23 (71%) trials; adverse events or side effects were not reported in 20 trials (62%). Thirteen trials (40%) were of superior quality according to the Jadad score (≥3 points). Six trials (18%) reported on long-term implementation of CDS.

Conclusion

The overall quality of reporting RCTs was low. There is a need to develop standards for reporting RCTs in medical informatics.     

对耳穴刺激治疗高血压RCT试验报告质量的CONSORT评价

目的:采用CONSROT声明对国内利用耳穴刺激防治高血压病的随机对照试验进行科学评价。方法:系统检索中国生物医学文献数据库、中国知网、维普和万方4个数据库,将国内耳穴刺激防治高血压病的随机对照实验文献全部纳入,并采用国际公认的CONSORT声明进行质量评价。结果:共纳入13篇文献。根据CONSORT条目,在所有纳入文献中,有8篇(61.54%)缺乏文题和摘要;10篇(76.92%)提及受试者纳入排除标准;11篇(84.62%)谈到了研究所用的统计学方法 ;12篇(92.31%)报告了各组的人口学和临床基线资料;尚未有文献提及样本含量估计、分配隐藏、盲法及意向性分析。结论:目前国内耳穴刺激质量高血压病的研究报告质量较低。研究者应采用国际公认的CONSORT声明对临床研究进行规范报告。     

Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality

Context  The evaluation of the methodologic quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is central to evidence-based health care. Important methodologic detail may, however, be omitted from published reports, and the quality of reporting is therefore often used as a proxy measure for methodologic quality. We examined the relationship between reporting quality and methodologic quality of published RCTs. Methods  Study of 60 reports of placebo-controlled trials published in English-language journals from 1985 to 1997. Reporting quality was measured using a 25-item scale based on the 1996 issue of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Concealment of allocation, appropriate blinding, and analysis according to the intention-to-treat principle were indicators of methodologic quality. Methodologic quality was compared between groups of trials defined by reporting quality scores of low, intermediate, and high. Reporting quality scores were compared between groups defined by high and low methodologic quality. Results  Among 23 trials of low reporting quality (median score, 9 [range, 3.5-10.5]), allocation concealment was unclear for all but 1 trial, but there were 16 trials (70%) with adequate blinding and 9 trials (39%) that had been analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Among 18 trials of high reporting quality (median score, 18 [range 16.5-22.0]), there were 8 trials (44%) with adequate allocation concealment, 16 trials (89%) with adequate blinding, and 13 trials (72%) analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The median reporting score was 15.0 for the 33 trials that were analyzed according to intention-to-treat principle and 14.5 for the 14 trials with on-treatment analyses (P = .67). Conclusions  Similar quality of reporting may hide important differences in methodologic quality, and well-conducted trials may be reported badly. A clear distinction should be made between these 2 dimensions of the quality of RCTs.      

医学研究报告规范在生物医学期刊中的采用情况及影响因素调查

目的　分析医学研究报告规范在生物医学期刊中的采用情况及影响因素,以期为有效采用医学研究报告规范、提高研究报告质量提供参考。方法　采用目的抽样法,抽取我国生物医学期刊的编辑人员216例为调查对象。于2017年10月—2018年2月,在检索查阅文献、专家咨询的基础上,结合研究目的自行设计调查问卷。问卷主要内容包括：期刊的基本情况、编辑人员的基本情况、期刊对医学研究报告规范的采用情况及影响因素等。共发放问卷216份,回收有效问卷198份,问卷的有效回收率为91.7%。结果　198本期刊中,采用医学研究报告规范的期刊有78本,采用率为39.4%;采用CONSORT声明的期刊78本（39.4%）,采用STROBE声明的期刊19本（9.6%）,采用STARD声明的期刊18本（9.1%）,采用PRISMA声明的期刊26本（13.1%）。不同数据库收录情况期刊的医学研究报告规范采用率、CONSORT声明采用率、PRISMA声明采用率比较,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）,且核心期刊的采用率高于非核心期刊（P<0.016 7）。采用医学研究报告规范的78本期刊中,采用过程中遇到的主要问题/困惑为作者不能很好配合采用（66.7%,52/78）和要求严格、可能导致许多稿件无法发表而影响出版进度（64.1%,50/78）。在120本未采用医学研究报告规范的期刊中,未采用的主要可能原因为要求严格、可能导致许多稿件无法发表而影响出版进度（65.8%,79/120）和作者不能很好配合采用（55.8%,67/120）。结论　目前医学研究报告规范在生物医学期刊中的采用情况尚有待改善,核心期刊的采用率较非核心期刊高,影响期刊采用医学研究报告规范的主要因素为作者不能很好配合采用和要求严格可能导致很多稿件无法发表而影响出版进度。建议加强编辑人员和医学生医学研究报告规范的培训,以推动报告规范的采用,进一步提高医学研究报告的质量。     

头针治疗帕金森病：一项随机对照试验的系统评价

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of scalp acupuncture (SA), a modern acupuncture technique specialized to neurological disorders, in managing motor function and symptoms for Parkinson''s disease (PD) patients. Methods: Two independent reviewers extracted data from all of the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of SA for PD compared with conventional therapies (CTs). Sixteen electronic databases were searched. The risk of bias was appraised with the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and the reporting of the included studies was evaluated by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist and the revised Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) guidelines. Results: In total, 4 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. As assessed by the Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS), 2 RCTs showed that SA combined with CTs proved superior to CTs alone [60 cases; weighted mean difference, –3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), –6.05 to –1.84, P=0.01; I2=0%]. Based on the Webster scale, however, 3 RCTs showed no superior effect of SA when combined with CTs with high heterogeneity (154 cases; risk ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.12, P=0.30; I2=84%). The Cochrane risk of bias, adherence to the CONSORT and the STRICTA checklist showed that the quality of all the included RCTs was generally low. Conclusions: The result of our systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that the effectiveness of SA for PD is promising, however, the evidence is not convincing. A sham-controlled RCT design that adheres to the CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines to overcome methodological weakness and that includes a large sample size is strongly recommended to confirm the precise effect of SA on PD.     

世界主要消化病杂志上随机对照试验报告质量比较分析

目的系统研究主要消化病杂志上发表的随机对照试验报告质量现状。方法系统分析并比较2008年和1998年发表在5本主要消化病杂志上的随机对照试验报告质量。相关文章通过检索MEDLINE获得。质量评价采用CONSORT声明修订版中的部分条目,内容包括随机序号产生、分配隐藏、盲法、样本量估算和意向性处理分析等。结果共检索到2008年的随机对照试验107个,1998年的99个。2008年的随机对照试验中．有76％（81／107）报告了恰当的随机序号产生方法,58％（62／107）报告了恰当的序号隐藏方法,58％（62／107）盲法恰当．78％（83／107）报告了恰当的样本量估算方法,69％（74／107）使用了意向性处理分析;而1998年相应的结果分别为35％（35／99）,25％（25／99）,53％（52／99）,47％（47／99）,42％（42／99）。结论2008年与1998年相比,5本主要消化病杂志上的随机对照试验报告质量有了明显的提高,说明CONSORT声明修订版对于随机对照试验报告质量的提高有很大作用,但目前其报告质量仍有很大的提升空间。     

中医药治疗非小细胞肺癌临床随机对照试验文献评价

目的:评价中医药治疗非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)临床随机对照试验(RCTs)文献的质量。方法:根据Cochrane中心指南,机检和手检相结合检索1997年1月至2006年12月国内生物医学期刊发表的有关中医药治疗NSCLC的RCTs文献,按照临床流行病学原理及临床试验的统一标准(CONSORT声明),收集所有文献的信息,进行描述性分析和一致性检验。结果:共纳入RCTs文献124篇。其中37篇报告了纳入标准,占29.84%;13篇有排除标准,占10.48%;37篇有明确的中医证候分类,占29.84%;无1篇文献交代样本含量估算情况;24篇报告了随机分配方法,占19.35%;8篇有随机隐藏的简单描述,占6.45%;85篇有基线资料的描述,占68.55%;3篇运用了盲法,占2.42%;77篇有统计学方法描述,占62.10%;6篇文献涉及到知情同意,占4.84%;88篇记录了不良反应,占70.97%;38篇对治疗后病例进行随访,占30.65%。结论:中医药治疗NSCLC的RCTs质量还不够高,有待进一步提高。主要表现为随机分组方法没有说明或应用错误,随机分配隐藏没有得到足够重视,盲法使用过低,受试者的纳入排除标准未充分报告,中医证候分类亟需规范统一,组间基线资料统计不全,样本量低且没有具体的估算方法,疗效评价标准不够统一,忽视依从性、病例脱落、随访情况的分析和伦理规范。     

Impact Evaluation of CONSORT and STRICTA Guidelines on Reporting Quality for Randomized Controlled Trials of Acupuncture Conducted in China

Objective:To evaluate and compare the reports' qualities of acupuncture randomized controlled trials(RCTs) conducted in China before and after the implementation of two guidelines,i.e.,the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials(CONSORT) statement and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture(STRICTA).Methods:Proportions of studies that reported CONSORT and STRICTA items were compared for the years before and after implementation of these two guidelines.In addition,the total score of each item's reporting were calculated and reported differences during different date ranges were compared.Results:For CONSORT items(maximum score 8),there was evidence of a slight improvement in reporting between 1994-1995 and 1999-2000 combined(2.5 + 0.6) and 2004-2005 and2009-2010 combined(3.0 ±0.9;difference 0.4,95%confidence interval,0.3 to 0.6,P0.01).For STRICTA items(maximum score 17),there was evidence that a slight improvement in reporting between 1994-1995 and 1999-2000 combined(8.6±2.1) and 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 combined(10.1 ±1.8;difference1.5,95%confidence interval,1.1 to 1.9,P0.01).Conclusion:Quality of reporting for RCTs of acupuncture treatment conducted in China have generally improved since the introduction of the STRICTA and CONSORT guidelines.     

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。