中国循证医学杂志

中国循证医学杂志

《中国中西医结合杂志》刊载中医药随机对照试验报告质量的研究

查看全文

目的 评价《中国中西医结合杂志》刊登的中医药临床随机对照试验(RCT)的质量,并分析其变化。 方法 计算机检索 CNKI 数据库,查找《中国中西医结合杂志》2014 年刊载的 RCT。以 CONSORT 2010 清单评价纳入 RCT 的报告质量,同时分析其方法学质量及伦理学要求执行情况,并与 2004 年同类研究对比。 结果 共纳入 80 个 RCT。干预措施排前 3 位的依次为中成药、汤剂、针灸。纳入 RCT 的条目报告符合率>80% 的条目有摘要、受试者、随机序列、知情同意;条目报告符合率 50%~80% 的有引言、干预措施、危害、资助;其余条目报告符合率<50%。其中,文题、试验设计、结局指标、样本量、随机方法类型、分配隐藏、盲法、纳入分析的例数、结局与估计值、推广性、解释、试验注册与试验方案 13 个条目的报告符合率<10%。与 2004 年对比,报告质量、方法学质量、伦理学报告均有提高。在摘要结构化、背景和目的阐释、受试者纳入、不良反应、中医药干预措施质量控制标准、中医药诊断评估标准、随访、资助、伦理审批和知情同意方面进步显著;在随机设计类型、分配隐藏、随机化实施、样本量计算、盲法、意向性分析方面进步较小。但是,流程图的使用一直缺如。 结论 《中国中西医结合杂志》临床随机对照试验报告质量、方法学质量及伦理学要求执行较以往有进步,但试验设计、结局指标、样本量、随机化、盲法、试验注册及流程图的使用仍需进一步提高。

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.

关键词: 中医药; 随机对照试验; 报告质量评价; CONSORT

Key words: TCM; RCTs; Reporting quality; CONSORT

引用本文: 张明妍, 杨丰文, 李越, 刘玉, 赵梦瑜, 郑文科, 张俊华. 《中国中西医结合杂志》刊载中医药随机对照试验报告质量的研究. 中国循证医学杂志, 2017, 17(3): 357-363. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201611085 复制

登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看全文内容。 没有账号,
登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看图表内容。 没有账号,
1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trial. Int J Surg, 2012, 10(1): 28-55.
2. 毛兵, 王刚, 陈小东, 等.《中国中西医结合杂志》发表随机对照试验报告的质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2006, 6(4): 297-304.
3. Available at: .
4. Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomized trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet, 2005, 365(9465): 1159-1162.
5. 侯政昆, 刘凤斌, 陈新林, 等. 循证量表:现代中医生产力下临床结局评价困境的突围方向. 中华中医药杂志, 2016, 31(10): 3872-3877.
6. 汪受传, 赵霞, 虞舜, 等. 循证性中医临床诊疗指南的质量评价—AGREEⅡ 工具及其应用. 中华中医药杂志, 2016, 31(8): 2963-2967.
7. 衷敬柏. 建立适合中医临床诊疗证据评价方法的建议. 中华中医药杂志, 2016, 31(4): 1146-1148.
8. 贺君, 陆丽明, 廖穆熙. 基于 CONSORT 与 STRICTA 对近 20 年国内针刺随机对照报告质量影响评价. 河北中医, 2016, 38(6): 811-816, 824.
9. Zhao X, Zhen Z, Guo J, et al. 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. Medicine (Baltimore), 2016, 95(3): e2522.
10. Wang P, Xu Q, Sun Q, et al. Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional Chinese medicine: a systematic review. PLoS One, 2013, 8(7): e70586.
11. Fan FF, Xu Q, Sun Q, et al. 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. PLoS One, 2014, 9(1): e86360.
12. He J, Du L, Liu G, et al, 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. Trials, 2011, 12: 122.
13. Gagnier JJ, Heather B, Paula R, et al. Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Inter Med, 2006, 119(9): e1-11.
14. Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, et al. Recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions: Explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol, 2006, 59(11): 1134-1149.
15. MacPherson H, Altman DG, Hammerschlag R, et al. Revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA): Extending the CONSORT statement. J Evid Based Med, 2010, 3(3): 140-155.