An intervention with clinical application must be effective and safe, therefore, when evaluating interventions, the benefit-harm ratio should be considered, and only those interventions with more benefits than harms have application value. To evaluate the benefits and harms of an intervention evidence of both benefits and harms should be reported in clinical trials. To promote better reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials, the CONSORT group had added an entry on harms in the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement, and then in 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated, the reporting of harms is still inadequate. The CONSORT group has updated《Better reporting of harms in randomized trial: an extension of the CCONSORT statement.》, published《CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials》. This article presents and explains the Harms 2022, with the aim of helping researchers better understand and use the statement, with a view to improving the reporting quality of harms in clinical trials.
Objective To investigate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on laparoscopic surgery for treating colorectal disease in three SCI indexed. Methods We electronically retrieved the Ovid MEDLINE(R) from 1950 to present with Daily Updates for RCTs on laparoscopic surgery published in Diseases of the Colon amp; Rectum, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, or Colorectal Disease. The revised CONSORT statement and additional surgical items were adopted to assess the reporting quality. One point was assigned for each full description of an item, 0 for no description, and 0.5 for a partial description. Results A total of 20 RCTs were included and 8 RCTs were excluded. Their reporting quality was low. The average scores for the following items were relatively lower, 0.150 for settings where data collected; 0.250 for sample size estimation; 0.500 for sequence generation of randomization; 0.325 for allocation concealment; 0.150 for implementation; 0.475 for measurement of outcome; 0.150 for participant flow chart; 0.450 for adverse events; 0.450 for external validity; 0.400 for financial conflicts of interest; 0.250 for perioperative pharmacological treatment; 0.075 for perioperative nonphamacological treatment; 0.000 for participation of a trial methodologist; 0.350 for surgeon’s experience (years or position). Items with the lower scores were mainly in the methods and results section and surgical items. Conclusions The reporting quality of laparoscopic RCTs in these journals is low. Colorectal surgeons should rigorously evaluate reports in these journals before they apply to them in clinical practice.
The quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials could be significantly improved by the application of CONSORT （Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials） statement. We compared and analyzed the difference of acceptance of CONSORT statement between Chinese medical journals and Western medical journals, and proposed to disseminate and apply CONSORT statement to improve the quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials and medical journals.
Objective To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials(RCTs) on traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) in China from 1999 to 2004 by CONSORT statement and Jadad scale. Methods We randomly selected 13 journals of TCM including Chinese Journal of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine,ect using stratified sampling from about 100 journals of TCM in mainland China, and all issues of selected journals published from 1999 to 2004 were hand-searched according to the hand-search guideline developed by Cochrane Collaboration. All reviewers were trained in the method of evaluating RCTs . A comprehensive quality assessment of each RCT was completed using methods including the revised consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) checklist and Jadad scale. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results A total of 7422 RCTs were identified, and the percentage of RCTs was significantly increased by 18.6%, 23.9%, 27.5%, 28.8%, 33.0% and 35.6% from 1999 to 2004. The mean Jadad score was 1.03 ± 0.61 in all trials with 1 RCT with 5 points, 14 with 4 points, and 102 with 3 points, from 1999 to 2004, the mean Jadad score was 0.85±0.53 (n=746), 0.82±0.63 (n=941), 0.90±0.61 (n=1 243), 1.03±0.60 (n=1 325), 1.12±0.58 (n=1 533) and 1.20±0.62 (n=1 634) respectively, which was improved continuously but slowly. 39.4% of the items in CONSORT, which was equivalent to 11.82 (standard deviation=5.78) of a total of 30 items, were reported across those trials. Some important methodological components of RCTs such as sample size calculation (1.1%), randomization sequence (7.9%), allocation concealment (0.3%), implementation of the random allocation sequence (0.0%) , analysis of intention to treat (0.0%), were incompletely reported. Conclusion Our study suggests that the quality of reporting has been improved but still in poor status, which would urgently promote the establishment of the CONSORT for TCM.
Objective To assess the reporting quality of noninferiority and equivalence randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Methods The noninferiority and equivalence RCTs related to TCM were searched, and the quality of the included RCTs was identified in accordance with the extended version of CONSORT statement which refers to the reporting standard of noninferiority and equivalence RCTs. Results A total of 13 noninferiority and equivalence RCTs were included. Except for the common questions of RCTs in reporting quality, some contents related to noninferiority and equivalence trials in reporting were not enough: a) The title of RCTs did not reflect the most important content of the literature; b) The introduction of background was quite simple. The rationale about noninferiority and equivalence trials, and the effectiveness of positive control were not clearly defined; c) All literatures did not indicate whether the subjects, interventions and outcomes in the noninferiority and equivalence trials were identical or similar to those in previous trials of defining the effectiveness of control treatment; d) Most literatures did not define the critical value of noninferiority and equivalence, and did not estimate the sample size; e) Only half of literature described the statistical methods of noninferiority test and equivalence test; and f) Some literature had mistakes in noninferiority and equivalence conclusion. Conclusion The researchers still need deeper understanding of the theoretical basis of noninferiority and equivalence trials. The reference to the extended version of CONSORT statement, which refers to the reporting standard of noninferiority and equivalence RCTs, is helpful for researchers to identify the key points of the design, performance and reporting of the noninferiority and equivalence RCTs, to lay stress on the related contents of noninferiority and equivalence trial reporting, and to radically improve the reporting quality of such clinical trials.
Objective To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine by CONSORT statement and Jadad scale. Methods We handsearched the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine to identify TCM RCTs. The revised CONSORT statement and Jadad scale combined with self-established criteria were applied. Results A total of 57 RCTs were identified of which there were 17 TCM RCTs. Some items in CONSORT checklist were completely reported in all TCM RCTs, such as abstract, inclusion and exclusion criteria, intervention, randomization sequence generation, description of statistic method, description of baseline data, outcomes and estimation, and explain results. Compared with the previous findings, there were more trials in this study to report allocation concealment, randomization implementation, use of flow chart and appliance. Only 3 RCTs (17.6%) reported acknowledgements. One RCT did not describe syndrome type of TCM, and 4 RCTs (23.5%) carried out dummy. The mean Jadad score was 4.35±1.11 in all trials, of which 11 RCTs (64.7) ranked 5 points. Conclusion The comprehensive quality of reporting of TCM RCTs published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from 2001 to 2008 has been improved. After the publication of CONSORT statement and CONSORT for traditional Chinese medicine, the quality of reporting of TCM RCTs is improved. We are looking forward to improving the CONSORT for TCM.
Objective To investigate the current situation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on compound salvia pellet (CSP) for angina pectoris and assess whether there is adequate evidence for clinical practice. Methods We collected all the published clinical studies on CSP for angina pectoris from 1994 to December 2005, and assessed each included report using the Jadad scale, the revised CONSORT statement and other self-edited items. Results We finally identified 115 RCTs. Among which, 1 scored 3 points, 6 scored 2 points, 106 scored 1 points and 2 socred 0 points. No RCT performed allocation concealment according to the CONSORT criteria, only 4 RCTs (3.5%) described the generation of the randomization sequence, among which 2 were quasi-randomized. No RCT provided randomization implementation,1 RCT (0.9%) carried out placebo control, 1 RCT (0.9%) reported endpoint, 9 RCTs (7.8%) adopted single blinding, 4 RCTs (3.5%) reported double blinding, 11 RCTs (9.6%) calculated statistical values, 2 RCTs (1.7%) provided the record of follow-up, 1 RCT (0.9%) reported negative outcome, 25 RCTs (21.8%) described adverse events, no RCT described how the sample size was estimated, and how an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis and correlation analysis were reported, 1 RCT (0.9%) was multi-center, no RCT completed ethical approval and informed consent, 27 RCTs (23.5%) described syndrome type of TCM. Conclusion Currently, the methodology and reporting of studies on CSP for angina pectoris are not good enough to provide reliable evidence for clinical practice.
Objective To evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine published inChinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, and to analyze changes. Methods We searched CNKI to collect RCTs published inChinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine (CJITWM) in 2014. Reporting quality of RCTs was evaluated by using CONSORT 2010 checklist, the methodological quality and ethics requirements were also analyzed. The changes of quality was also analyzed by comparing with those of 2004. Results A total of 80 RCTs were included. The top three interventions were Chinese patent medicine, decoction, acupuncture. Items with high reporting rate (>80%) included abstract, participants, randomization sequences and informed consent. Items with reporting rate of 50% to 80% including introduction, interventions, harms and funding, and others were all less than 50%. Among them, the reporting quality of title, trial design, outcomes, sample size, type of randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, numbers analyzed, outcomes and estimation, generalizability, interpretation, registration and protocol was less than 10%. Compared with those of 2004, the quality of reporting, methodology, and ethics has all increased. Significant progress was made in items of structured summary, background and objectives, collecting participants, adverse reactions, quality control standards of TCM interventions, diagnostic evaluation criteria of TCM, follow-up, funding, ethical approval and informed consent. But small progress was made in randomization, allocation concealment and implementation, sample size, blinding and ITT. There has been no participant flow. Conclusion The quality of reporting, methodology, and ethics of RCTs published inChinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine have made some progress, however, trial design, outcomes selection, estimation of sample size, randomization, blinding, registration and participant flow are still needed to be further improved.
ObjectiveTo investigate the methodological and reporting quality of clinical trials involving Xiaoyao San for chronic fatigue syndrome. MethodsWe searched PubMed, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about Xiaoyao San for chronic fatigue syndrome. The methodological and reporting quality of included RCTs was respectively evaluated according to the assessment tool of risk of bias of the Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0 and the CONSORT 2010 statement, combined with complementary assessment by the characteristic indicators of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). The methodological and reporting quality of included case series study was respectively assessed by the methods recommended by the Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the STROBE statement. ResultsA total of 27 clinical trials were included, involving 11 RCTs and 16 case series studies. According to the assessment tool of risk of bias of the Cochrane Handbook, 54.5% of the RCTs performed proper random method, 9.1% conducted allocation concealment and blinding, 72.7% selected intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis without the report of loss to follow-up, and no RCT existed selective reports. Corresponding to the characteristic indicators of TCM, 54.5% of the RCTs did not conduct TCM syndrome diagnosis, the curative effect standard of TCM syndrome was discrepant, and no RCT was multi-center study. The CONSORT 2010 statement indicated that no RCT explained sample size estimation, implementation details of randomization, flow diagram of participant, use of ITT and clinical trial registration. According to the items recommended by Britain's NICE, 6.25% of the case series studies were multi-center, 81.25% did not report clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and no case series study performed continuous patient recruitment and stratification analysis of outcome. The STROBE statement indicated that no case series study reported research design, sample size, flow chart, bias, limitations and generalizability. ConclusionThe quality of clinical trials about Xiaoyao San for chronic fatigue syndrome is still low in methodological and reporting aspects. It is suggested that the future clinical trials should be conducted with references of CONSORT statement and STROBE statement, to propel the modernization and internationalization of TCM.