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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment of the Quality of Reporting in Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Five Leading Chinese Medical Journals

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

Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals.

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

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

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

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

Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trial Report in the Field of Breast Cancer Published in Chinese

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?

Evaluation of Abstracts on Randomized Controlled Trials in Continuity of Patient Care Published in Chinese

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

The quality assessment of the interventional radiololgy publications in Chinese journal of radiology using the randomized controlled trials

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