Reporting quality of Cochrane systematic reviews with Chinese herbal medicines

Abstract

BackgroundChinese herbal medicines (CHMs) are the major interventions of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), which are typically administered as either single herbs or formulas. The Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) of CHMs are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CHMs interventions; they are expected to be accurate and reliable. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to CHM was adequately reported.MethodsThe Cochrane Database was systematically searched for all SRs of CHM that were published up to 31 December 2017. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 9-item of CHM-related information designed according to TCM theory. Descriptive statistics were additionally used to analyze their baseline characteristics.ResultsA total of 109 Cochrane SRs of CHM were identified from 1999 to 2017. For 27-item of PRISMA, 26 had the reporting compliances higher than 50%, of which 11 were fully reporting (100%). However, for CHM-related information, 65 (59.6%) SRs did not report the specific name of the CHM in the title, 42 (38.5%) lacked TCM-related rationales in the introduction, 62 (56.9%) did not include CHM-related characteristics in the additional analyses, and 77 (70.6%) did not analyze CHM results in terms of TCM-related theories in the discussion. Of 97 SRs that included clinical trials, 38 (39.2%) did not provide the details of composition and dosage of CHMs, 85 (87.6%) did not report the CHM sources, 13 (13.4%) did not provide the dosage form, 95 (97.9%) lacked CHM quality control information, and 57 (58.8%) did not describe details of the controls. For 62 (72.9%) of 85 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of CHM interventions.ConclusionAlthough the Cochrane SRs of CHM showed reporting compliance with PRISMA checklist, their reporting quality needs improvement, especially about full reporting of CHM interventions and of TCM-related rationales. Reporting guideline of “PRISMA extension for CHM interventions” should be developed thus to improve their quality.

PRISMA extension for moxibustion 2020: recommendations, explanation, and elaboration

“…If any data item is insufficiently reported and cannot be obtained by contacting authors of the included trials, then it should be described as “not reported” in the review. For moxibustion SRs, information about the CM pattern (if any) studied and about interventions should be completely provided in the results, as this is the basis for readers’ assessment of the validity of data synthesis in the SRs [ 46 ]. It is highly recommended that authors summarize the details of all relevant information for each included study in tables, which can be shown in the appendix or supplementary files.…”

Reporting quality of systematic reviews with Moxibustion

“…According to the characteristics of moxibustion, whether the additional analyses (e.g., subgroup analysis) were properly designed is the key for assessing the value of summary results [22]. Similar to previous reports, however, SRs with CM interventions (e.g., Chinese herbal medicines) usually prefer to include broad types of studied interventions [23][24]. This review found that there were 67 included SRs focused on a large category of various moxibustion types.…”

“…Therefore, except for continuously improved the completeness reporting of the PRISMA checklist, a series of standard reporting items especially for moxibustion SRs should be developed as an extension for the PRISMA. With the PRISMA extension for acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicines have been published and developed [29,23], the speci c guideline for moxibustion is really helpful to supplement the SRs with CM interventions. Our group has registered this reporting guideline on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research), and has initiated the related work [30].…”

Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion

“…According to the characteristics of moxibustion, whether the additional analyses (e.g., subgroup analysis) were properly designed is the key for assessing the value of summary results [22]. Similar to previous reports, however, SRs with CM interventions (e.g., Chinese herbal medicines) usually prefer to include many different types of studied interventions [23,24]. As the proportion of wide intervention ranges rises, and the rates of unreasonable synthesis of results more easily appeared.…”