| Methods |
Evaluated the quality of Chinese herbal medicine RCTs using a modified CONSORT checklist before and after 2000, the 4th of a 4‐part series considering the quality of Chinese herbal medicine RCTs |
| Data |
Percentage reported by year, data extracted to form comparison before 2001 and 2001 onwards |
| Comparisons |
Before and after CONSORT publication |
| Outcomes |
Total sum score of 63 items |
| Included number of RCTs, Journals |
167, 35 |
| Checklist version used |
63‐item modification of the 2001 checklist |
| Field of Study |
Chinese herbal medicine |
| Notes |
Author provided additional information, but this was not all that was necessary to include in a more robust comparison |
| Risk of bias |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Description |
| Large Cohort ? |
Unclear |
RCTs from 11 systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine |
| Blinding? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
| Confounding by journal quality? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
| Outcome Reporting? |
Yes |
No difference between planned and reported outcomes |
| Multiple raters? |
Yes |
Independent assessment by 2 reviewers |
| Rater agreement? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
| Blinding, quality assessment? |
Yes |
Not applicable |
