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.

Survey and practice of reporting quality of randomized controlled clinical trials on traditional Chinese medicine

Evaluation of Early and Midterm Results of Offpump Coronary Artery Bypass in Patients with Left Main Disease

The Reporting Quality, Scientific Rigor, and Ethics of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine Compound Formulations and the Differences Between Chinese and Non-Chinese Trials.

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

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

Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Placebo-controlled Randomized Trials on the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes With Traditional Chinese Medicine in Mainland China: A PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review.

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

Review of Randomised Controlled Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Investigation on Chinese clinicians’ perception of clinical trials

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

Chemotherapy of Trypanosoma brucei infection of the central nervous system: the use of a rapid chemotherapeutic regimen and the development of post-treatment encephalopathies.

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

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in pharmacotherapy for pituitary adenomas

Quality assessment of paediatric randomized controlled trials published in China from 1999 to 2022: a cross-sectional study

Quality assessment of clinical trial registration with traditional Chinese medicine in WHO registries

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

Clinical Studies with Traditional Chinese Medicine in the Past Decade and Future Research and Development

Expert Consensus on Key Issues of Quality Control in Clinical Trials of New Drugs of Traditional Chinese Medicine

Reporting quality of meta-analyses in acupuncture: Investigating adherence to the PRISMA statement

Quality Assessment for Randomized Controlled Trials of TCM Therapy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Reporting characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trial protocols in traditional Chinese medicine: a cross-sectional study