Abstract:BackgroundThe approximately 1100 medical journals now active in China are publishing a rapidly increasing number of research reports, including many studies identified by their authors as randomized controlled trials. It has been noticed that these reports mostly present positive results, and their quality and authenticity have consequently been called into question. We investigated the adequacy of randomization of clinical trials published in recent years in China to determine how many of them met acceptable standards for allocating participants to treatment groups.MethodsThe China National Knowledge Infrastructure electronic database was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials on 20 common diseases published from January 1994 to June 2005. From this sample, a subset of trials that appeared to have used randomization methods was selected. Twenty-one investigators trained in the relevant knowledge, communication skills and quality control issues interviewed the original authors of these trials about the participant randomization methods and related quality-control features of their trials.ResultsFrom an initial sample of 37,313 articles identified in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, we found 3137 apparent randomized controlled trials. Of these, 1452 were studies of conventional medicine (published in 411 journals) and 1685 were studies of traditional Chinese medicine (published in 352 journals). Interviews with the authors of 2235 of these reports revealed that only 207 studies adhered to accepted methodology for randomization and could on those grounds be deemed authentic randomized controlled trials (6.8%, 95% confidence interval 5.9–7.7). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of authenticity between randomized controlled trials of traditional interventions and those of conventional interventions. Randomized controlled trials conducted at hospitals affiliated to medical universities were more likely to be authentic than trials conducted at level 3 and level 2 hospitals (relative risk 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.18–2.13, and relative risk 14.42, 95% confidence interval 9.40–22.10, respectively). The likelihood of authenticity was higher in level 3 hospitals than in level 2 hospitals (relative risk 9.32, 95% confidence interval 5.83–14.89). All randomized controlled trials of pre-market drug clinical trial were authentic by our criteria. Of the trials conducted at university-affiliated hospitals, 56.3% were authentic (95% confidence interval 32.0–81.0).ConclusionMost reports of randomized controlled trials published in some Chinese journals lacked an adequate description of randomization. Similarly, most so called 'randomized controlled trials' were not real randomized controlled trials owing toa lack of adequate understanding on the part of the authors of rigorous clinical trial design. All randomized controlled trials of pre-market drug clinical trial included in this research were authentic. Randomized controlled trials conducted by authors in high level hospitals, especially in hospitals affiliated to medical universities had a higher rate of authenticity. That so many non-randomized controlled trials were published as randomized controlled trials reflected the fact that peer review needs to be improved and a good practice guide for peer review including how to identify the authenticity of the study urgently needs to be developed.

Reporting Quality of English Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Major Chinese Medical Journals

Quality Assessment of the Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in 5 Journals of Psychiatry in China from 2004 to 2008 by Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement

Does the CONSORT checklist for abstracts improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials on clinical pathways?

The quality of reports of randomized clinical trials on traditional Chinese medicine treatments: a systematic review of articles indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database from 2005 to 2012

Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Ophthalmic Diseases Related Randomized Controlled Trials Published in SCI Journals from Mainland China

Do the CONSORT and STRICTA Checklists Improve the Reporting Quality of Acupuncture and Moxibustion Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Chinese Journals? A Systematic Review and Analysis of Trends

A survey of reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in the field of pediatrics published in Chinese pediatric journal

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis

Mathodological Evaluation of Reporting of Clinical Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Digestive Diseases in China

Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials on Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease with Traditional Chinese Medicine from the Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine: A Systematic Review

The Quality of Reporting of Randomized Trials Related to Digestive Diseases in 2008 and 1998:A Comparative Study

Evaluation of randomized clinical trial papers published in medical sci-tech journals depending on 2010 CONSORT statement

Does the reporting of randomized clinical trials published in Chinese pediatrics journals improve after the CONSORT Statement is adopted?

A Cross-Sectional Study of the Endorsement Proportion of Reporting Guidelines in 1039 Chinese Medical Journals

Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized?

Suboptimal reporting of randomized controlled trials on non-pharmacological therapies in Chinese medicine

Impact of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist on reporting of randomized clinical trials in traditional Chinese medicine

Quality of Reporting in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials

A Cross-sectional literature survey showed the reporting quality of multicenter randomized controlled trials should be improved

Reporting quality of meta-analysis on genetic association studies published in Chinese journals

Evidence Based Social Science in China Paper 3: The quality of social science RCTs published from 2000–2020