Abstract:Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which are of poor quality tend to exaggerate the effect estimate and lead to wrong or misleading conclusions. The aim of this study is to assess the quality of randomization methods, allocation concealment and blinding within traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) RCTs, discuss issues identified for current TCM RCTs, and provide suggestions for quality improvement. Methods We searched Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM, 1978 to July 31, 2009) and the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2009) to collect TCM systematic reviews and meta-analyses according to inclusion/exclusion criteria, from which RCTs could be identified. The quality assessment involved whether the randomization methods, allocation concealment and blinding were adequate or not based the study reported. Stratified analyses were conducted of different types of diseases published in different journals (both Chinese and foreign) using different interventions. SPSS 15.0 software was used for statistic analyses. Results A total of 3159 RCTs were included, of which 2580 were published in Chinese journals and 579 in foreign journals. There were 381 (12%) RCTs which used adequate randomization methods; 207 (7%) RCTs which used adequate allocation concealment and 601 (19%) which used adequate blinding; there were 130 (4%) RCTs which both used adequate randomization methods and allocation concealment; and there were only 100 (3%) RCTs which used adequate randomization methods, allocation concealment, as well as blinding. In the RCTs published in foreign journals, the adequate randomization methods, allocation concealment and blinding accounted for a relatively large proportion (25%, 26%, and 60%, respectively) and increased with years, while in the RCTs published in Chinese journals, only the adequate randomization methods improved over time. The quality of non-drug intervention (chiefly acupuncture) RCTs was higher than that of drug intervention RCTs. In drug intervention, the quality of listed drugs is higher than the others. The quality of all included RCTs of all types of diseases was generally poor and no studies that were large in size and of high quality were found. Conclusion The quality of the current TCM RCTs as judged by their publications is generally poor, especially those published in Chinese journals. In future, researchers of TCM RCTs should attach more importance to experimental design and methodological quality, receive relevant training, and improve reporting quality using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, so as to improve the quality of TCM clinical research and ensure truth and reliability of conclusions.

Quality of reporting of two-group parallel randomized controlled clinical trials of multi-herb formulae: A survey of reports indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded

The Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine: a Survey of 13 Randomly Selected Journals from Mainland China.

Quality Assessment of the Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in the Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine with the Revised CONSORT Statement

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

Assessing the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in Traditional Chinese Medicine

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 Randomized Controlled Trials On The Treatment Of Diabetes Mellitus With Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Systematic Review

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

Quality assessment of reporting of randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding in traditional chinese medicine RCTs: A review of 3159 RCTs identified from 260 systematic reviews

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) formulas for diabetes based on the consort statement and its extension for CHM formulas

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

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

Current Situation on the Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in 5 Leading Chinese Medical Journals

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Traditional Chinese Medicine: Current Situation and Future Development

Epidemiology, Quality And Reporting Characteristics Of Systematic Reviews Of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published In Chinese Journals

Evaluation of Compliance of CONSORT-CHM Formula 2017 in Randomized Controlled Trials of Chinese Herbal Medicine Formulas: Protocol of a Five-Year Review.

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.

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

Precise Reporting of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions in Randomized Controlled Trials

Reporting quality and risk of bias of randomized controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine for multiple sclerosis

[Methodological and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with traditional Chinese medicine]