ArticleTrials2026
Evaluation of randomized controlled trial literature in traditional Chinese medicine: a literature quality assessment system.
Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have evaluated traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinical randomized controlled trial (RCT) literature broadly, but they have provided limited depth in evaluating the specific aspects of trial quality.
objectiveThis study aims to develop a specialized literature quality assessment system for TCM RCTs.
methodsWe integrated international standards with TCM characteristics to create a checklist for evaluating basic method information and intervention operations. A rating system was established to classify content into four categories based on completeness and accuracy.
resultsWe assessed 2776 TCM RCTs across six disease categories. For basic method information, "outcome indicators" and "participants' medical sources" were commonly mentioned but often vague, with accurate rates of 60.73% and 74.52%, respectively. Critical elements, including "TCM diagnosis and diagnostic basis," "TCM syndromes (clinically defined patterns of symptoms that guide TCM therapy)," "randomization methods," and "blinding" were frequently omitted, with omission rates ranging from 68.58% to 97.48%. For interventions, "treatment group intervention" had higher completeness (97.83%) than "control group intervention" (82.68%). Inaccurate reporting commonly stemmed from incomplete descriptions of interventions or unspecified drug compositions.
conclusionOur results suggested a serious concern that TCM-related concepts were often missing in trial designs for TCM RCTs, which might impede the development of TCM theories. Also, this study's inaccurate trial designs and intervention descriptions can provide cautionary examples for future RCT protocols or reports in TCM to avoid.
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.