Improving the quality of randomized controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine, part I: Clinical trial design and methodology

Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 120-129

  Bian, Zhao Xiang ^a   Li, You Ping ^b   Moher, David ^c   Dagenais, Simon ^c   Liu, Liang ^a   Wu, Tai Xiang ^b   Miao, Jiang Xia ^d   Kwan, Andrew K L ^a   Song, Lisa ^a  

^a HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY   (Hong Kong)

^b SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^d CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Chinese herbal medicine; Methodology; Quality assessment; Randomized controlled trial

Indexed keywords

HERBACEOUS AGENT;

CALCULATION; CHINESE MEDICINE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; OPEN STUDY; PATIENT SELECTION; PEER REVIEW; PILOT STUDY; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZATION; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TEA; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 33645295227     PISSN: 16721977     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3736/jcim20060204     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr, 2002, 2(1): 3.
2. Linde K, ter Riet C, Hondras M, et al. Systematic reviews of complementary therapies - an annotated bibliography. Part 2: Herbal medicine. BMC Complement Altern Med, 2001, 1: 5.
3. Liu JP, Kjaergard LL, Gluud C. Misuse of randomization: a review of Chinese randomized trials of herbal medicines for chronic hepatitis B. Am J Chin Med, 2002, 30(1): 173-176.
4. Linde K, Jonas WB, Melchart D, et al. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture. Int J Epidemiol, 2001, 30(3): 526-531.
5. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1997.
6. Schultz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA, 1995, 273(5): 408-412.
7. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomized trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet, 1998, 352(9128): 609-613.
8. Moher D. CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. JAMA, 1998, 279(18): 1489-1491.
9. Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess, 1999, 3(12): i-iv, 1-98.
10. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med, 2001, 134(8): 663-694.
11. Chang ZQ, Chang XY. Clinical observation of integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine in treatment of diabetes. Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi, 1998, 18(11): 674-676.
12. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomized trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet, 2005, 365(9467): 1348-1353.
13. Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Fundamentals of clinical trials. 3rd ed. New York: Spring Verlag, 1998.
14. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, et al. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 "negative" trials. N Engl J Med, 1978, 299(13): 690-694.
15. Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA, 1994, 272(2): 122-124.
16. Montenegro R, Needleman I, Moles D, et al. Quality of RCTs in periodontology - a systematic review. J Dent Res, 2002, 81(12): 866-870.
17. Harrison JE. Clinical trials in orthodontics II: assessment of the quality of reporting of clinical trials published in three orthodontic journals between 1989 and 1998. J Orthod, 2003, 30(4): 309-315.
18. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Unequal group sizes in randomized trials: guarding against guessing. Lancet, 2002, 359(9310): 966-970.
19. Schulz KF. Grimes DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomized trials: chance, not choice. Lancet, 2002, 359(9305): 515-519.
20. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Quality of randomized clinical trials affects estimates of intervention efficacy. 7th Annual Cochrane Colloquium Abstracts. Rome: 1999.
21. Juni P, Altman D, Egger M. Systematic review in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled trials. BMJ, 2001, 323(7303): 42-46.
22. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomized trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet, 2002, 359(9306): 614-618.
23. Schulz KF. Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomized controlled trials: Why bother? ACP J Club, 2000, 132(2): A11-A12.
24. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Blinding in randomized trials: hiding who got what. Lancet, 2002, 359(9307): 697-700.
25. Kaptchuk TJ. Intentional ignorance: a history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine. Bull Hist Med, 1998, 72(3): 389-433.
26. Latronico N, Botteri M, Minelli C, et al. Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in the intensive care literature. A systematic analysis of papers published in Intensive Care Medicine over 26 years. Intensive Care Med, 2002, 28(9): 1316-1323.
27. De Angelis, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical Trial Registration: A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Croat Med J, 2004, 45(5): 531-532.