Humans ; Publishing ; standards ; Quality Control ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; standards ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research Design ; standards

要正确理解随机对照试验(randomized controlled trial,RCT)的结果,读者必须了解其设计方案、实施过程、分析方法和结果解释。为达此目的,要求作者必须完整清晰地将这些内容表述出来。虽然经过数十年的教育,RCT的报告方法仍然需要改进。一些研究人员和编辑为此编写了CONSORT(Consolidated Standards of RePorting Trials,临床试验报告的统一标准)声明第一版,采用清单和流程图的方式帮助作者提高报告质量。本文根据读者对第一版的反馈对CONSORT声明进行了修改,并补充了新的证据。清单条目分为题目、、引言、方法、结果和评论共6个部分。修订版清单包括了22项条目,均为经验证据证明如不报告就会导致疗效估计偏倚的信息或作以判断结果可靠性和相关性的基本信息,配以流程图来描述受试者参与RCT的过程。修订版流程图描述了试验的4个步骤(包括登记、干预的分配、随访和分析),并明确注明了原始数据分析中各干预组人数。读者可通过人数判断作者是否进行了意向性分析(ITT)。总之,CONSORT声明旨在改进RCT的报告质量,方便读者了解研究实施情况并判断其结果的真实性。

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) intervention should be concisely and precisely reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Based on State Food and Drug Administration's categories, we recommend reporting the interventions as follows: (1) Single Chinese herbal medicine-based/formula-based/extraction-based intervention includes 1) Name, dosage format and registration; 2) The composition and quality of intervention; 3) Pharmaceutical processing and quality control; 4) Stability of final product and quality control; 5) Function and safety description; 6) Dosage and treatment course; 7) Control group. (2) Active compound-based TCM drug intervention includes 1) Name of active compound(s); 2) Original source of active compound(s); 3) The brief process obtaining active compound(s); 4) Percentage of active compound(s) in final product; 5) Added materials and its quality and quantity control. Besides, the detailed information of intervention can be published as an online supplement in web site.

Evaluating outcome is the primary means by which different medical modalities can be compared with regard to effectiveness. In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), this focus has prompted practitioners to search for outcome measures that can objectively verify the effectiveness of TCM interventions, especially in the context of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Commonly used indexes for outcome assessment in RCTs of TCM can be categorized into two types: TCM-specific outcomes such as tongue and pulse characteristics, and Western medicine (WM)-specific outcomes such as blood test and X-ray examination results. Some studies include both types of indicators. During the trial design, it is necessary to consider the rationales of selecting outcome assessments, the purpose and study approach, balance between objective and subjective indexes, standardization of outcome assessment, and standardized outcome indexes. We recommend to report the outcome assessment in RCTs of TCM in the following format: 1) identifying the primary and secondary outcomes based on the purpose and hypothesis of the trial; 2) defining the primary and secondary outcomes clearly; 3) presenting the rationale of selection; 4) presenting the method with aims to standardize the assessment process; 5) presenting the method to improve the reliability of assessment; and 6) stating the termination criteria in the trial.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the types of control groups in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), and to provide suggestions for improving the design of control group in future clinical studies in this therapeutic area. METHODS: A search of the Cochrane Library was conducted in July 2005 to identify RCTs of CHM, and 66 RCTs with CHM for type 2 diabetes mellitus were obtained as the basis for further analysis. RESULTS: Of 66 RCTs with CHM for type 2 diabetes mellitus, 61 (92.4%) trials had both a treatment group and a control group. Twenty-seven (40.9%) RCTs compared CHM plus conventional drug vs conventional drug, 24 (36.4%) compared CHM vs conventional drug, 5 (7.6%) compared CHM vs placebo, 3 (4.5%) compared CHM plus conventional drug vs conventional drug plus placebo, 3 (4.5%) compared CHM plus conventional drug vs other CHM, 1 (1.5%) compared CHM vs no treatment, 1 (1.5%) compared CHM plus placebo vs conventional drug plus placebo, 1 (1.5%) compared CHM vs CHM plus conventional drug vs conventional drug vs placebo, and 1 (1.5%) compared CHM vs conventional drug vs CHM plus conventional drug. CONCLUSION: A variety of control groups were used in RCTs of CHM for type 2 diabetes mellitus, including placebo, active, and no treatment control groups. Justification for selecting particular types of control groups were not provided in the trials reviewed in this study. Different control groups may be appropriate according to the study objectives, and several factors should be considered prior to selecting control groups in future RCTs of CHM. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Investigators of CHM who design clinical trials should understand the rationale for selecting different types of control groups; (2) Control groups for RCTs should be selected according to study objectives; (3) Active control groups should select interventions for comparisons that have the strongest evidence of efficacy and prescribe them as recommended; (4) Placebo control groups should select a placebo that mimics the physical characteristics of test intervention as closely as possible and is completely inert; (5) No treatment control groups should only be used when withholding treatment is ethical and objectives outcomes will not be subject to bias due to absent blinding; (6) Crossover control groups may be appropriate in chronic and stable conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), and to provide suggestions for improving the reporting of future clinical studies in this therapeutic area. METHODS: A search of the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify RCTs of CHM. A revised CONSORT checklist designed for CHM clinical studies was implemented. The revised CONSORT checklist contained 63 items, including the following new items added specifically for CHM: (1) "syndrome of disease" based on Chinese medicine theories; (2) rationale of CHM formula; (3) formula composition; (4) preparation form of CHM; (5) quality control of CHM. RESULTS: The overall reporting quality of the RCTs as assessed with the revised CONSORT checklist varied between 19% and 44%, with a median score of 32% (standard deviation 8%). CONCLUSION: The overall quality of reporting of RCTs of CHM evaluated with a revised CONSORT checklist was poor, reflecting the need for improvements in reporting future clinical trials in this area. RECOMMENDATIONS: To improve the quality of reporting of RCTs of CHM, we recommend adopting a revised CONSORT checklist that includes items specific to CHM. We also recommend that editors of CHM journals require authors to use a structured approach to presenting their trials as a condition of publication.

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomized, controlled trials. Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. Randomized, controlled trials, when appropriately designed, conducted, and reported, represent the gold standard in evaluating health care interventions. However, randomized trials can yield biased results if they lack methodological rigor. To assess a trial accurately, readers of a published report need complete, clear, and transparent information on its methodology and findings. Unfortunately, attempted assessments frequently fail because authors of many trial reports neglect to provide lucid and complete descriptions of that critical information. That lack of adequate reporting fueled the development of the original CONSORT statement in 1996 and its revision 5 years later. While those statements improved the reporting quality for some randomized, controlled trials, many trial reports still remain inadequate. Furthermore, new methodological evidence and additional experience has accumulated since the last revision in 2001. Consequently, we organized a CONSORT Group meeting to update the 2001 statement. We introduce here the result of that process, CONSORT 2010.
Bias (Epidemiology) ; Delivery of Health Care ; Group Processes ; Research Design