| Methods |
Assessed the reporting quality, scientific rigour, and ethics of randomised placebo‐controlled trials of TCM compound formulations and compared these differences between Chinese and non‐Chinese trials |
| Data |
52 pre‐CONSORT RCTs and 227 post CONSORT RCTs published before 1999 and from 2005‐2009 respectively |
| Comparisons |
Cross‐sectional sample before and after CONSORT publication |
| Outcomes |
Total sum score |
| Included number of RCTs, Journals |
279, not reported |
| Checklist version used |
2001 |
| Field of Study |
Traditional Chinese Medicine articles |
| Notes |
Author provided additional data but no journal information |
| Risk of bias |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Description |
| Large Cohort ? |
Yes |
Large databases searched over many years |
| Blinding? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
| Confounding by journal quality? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
| Outcome Reporting? |
Yes |
No evidence of selective reporting |
| Multiple raters? |
Yes |
Quote: "Two authors assessed each included trial independently." |
| Rater agreement? |
No |
Quote: "Interrater reliability was used to test values from each reviewer and Cohen's K was 0.721" |
| Blinding, quality assessment? |
Yes |
Not applicable |
