Literature DB >> 22765929

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

Bin Ma1, Fa-yong Ke, Zhi-min Chen, Guo-qing Qi, Hai-min Li, Wen-jie Liu, Yuan Zhang, Qing Hu, Ke-hu Yang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is no systematic assessment whether the quality of reporting has been improved since the CONSORT Statement was introduced into China in 1997. The aim of this study is to determine whether the use of the CONSORT Statement is associated with improved quality of reporting of RCTs published in Chinese pediatrics journals.
METHODS: Six core Chinese pediatrics journals that included Journal of Clinical Pediatrics, Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics, Chinese Journal of Practical Pediatrics, Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Pediatrics, Chinese Journal of Pediatrics, and Chinese Journal of Pediatric Surgery were searched from inception through Dec. 2010. The CONSORT checklists were used to assess the quality of reporting. Data was collected using a standardized form. Analyses were performed using SPSS 15.0 software.
RESULTS: A total of 619 RCTs were included. The quality of reporting has improved significantly in aspects such as introduction, recruitment, baseline data, and ancillary analyses (p<0.05), but not in several important methodological components, including sample size calculation (0.63% vs.1.08%), randomization sequence generation (3.18% vs. 7.58%), allocation concealment (0% vs. 1.08%), and blinding (0% vs. 0.87%).
CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of RCTs has not significantly improved since the CONSORT Statement was introduced into China. The reporting remains poor, and often inadequate for assessment of the rigor of studies. Chinese pediatrics journals should reinforce the use of the CONSORT Statement in the reporting of trials.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22765929     DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.06.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials        ISSN: 1551-7144            Impact factor:   2.226


  5 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jaykaran Charan; Mayur Chaudhari; Ryan Jackson; Rahul Mhaskar; Tea Reljic; Ambuj Kumar
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 2.692

2.  Recommendations and evidence for reporting items in pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports: two systematic reviews.

Authors:  April V P Clyburne-Sherin; Pravheen Thurairajah; Mufiza Z Kapadia; Margaret Sampson; Winnie W Y Chan; Martin Offringa
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 3.  Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional chinese medicine: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ping Wang; Qin Xu; Qi Sun; Fang-Fang Fan; Xue-Rui Guo; Fei Guo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of meta-analyses of observational studies published in Chinese journals.

Authors:  Zhe-wen Zhang; Juan Cheng; Zhuan Liu; Ji-chun Ma; Jin-long Li; Jing Wang; Ke-hu Yang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 5.  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.

Authors:  Bin Ma; Zhi-min Chen; Jia-ke Xu; Ya-nan Wang; Kuang-yang Chen; Fa-yong Ke; Jun-qiang Niu; Li Li; Cheng-ben Huang; Jian-xun Zheng; Jia-Hui Yang; Qian-ge Zhu; Ya-ping Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.