ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
The methodological reporting quality in strictly randomized controlled trials for COVID-19 and precise reporting of Chinese herbal medicine formula intervention.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Role of Histone Modifications in Acute Lung Injury: Molecular Mechanisms and Potential of Traditional Chinese Medicine Treatment.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) formulas played an important role during the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on CHM for COVID-19 were quickly published. Concerns have been raised about their quality. In addition, inadequate detailed information on CHM formula intervention may arouse suspicion about their effectiveness. We aim to assess the most recent evidence of the methodological reporting quality of these RCTs with strict randomization, and the precise reporting of the CHM formula intervention. Methods: RCTs on CHM formulas for COVID-19 were searched from nine databases. The CONSORT 2010, CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017, and risk of bias were the guidelines used to assess the included RCTs. The checklist of sub-questions based on CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017 was used to evaluate the precise reporting of CHM formula intervention. A comparison was made between RCTs that enrolled participants during and after the first wave of the pandemic (defined here as December 2019 to March 2020). Results: The average score for 66 studies evaluated based on three guidelines, the CONSORT 2010, the CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017, and the checklist of sub-questions based on the CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017, is 16.4, 15.2, and 17.2, respectively. The reporting rate of sample size calculation, allocation concealment, and blinding is less than 30%. The checklist of sub-questions based on the CONSORT-CHM formulas 2017 can help report and assess CHM formula intervention more precisely. Most studies assessed an "unclear risk of bias" due to insufficient information. RCTs published in English and recruited subjects during the first wave of the pandemic have a higher risk of participant blinding bias than the studies recruited subjects after that ( Conclusion: The methodological reporting quality in strictly randomized RCTs on CHM formulas for COVID-19 is inadequate-the reporting of sample size calculation, allocation concealment, and blinding need to improve especially. The checklist of sub-questions based on CONSORT-CHM formulas 2017 can help report and assess CHM formula intervention more precisely. The methodological reporting quality of RCTs published in English and enrolled participants during the first wave of the pandemic is worse than the studies that recruited subjects after the first wave of the pandemic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.