RESUMO
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the endorsement of the Consolidation Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement by Chinese journals of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and its incorporation into their editorial processes. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and major Chinese databases were searched to identify journals of TCM from China for inclusion. The latest 'instruction for authors' (IFA) of each included journal was obtained and any text mentioning CONSORT or CONSORT extension papers was extracted. Subsequently, the editor of each of the included journals was surveyed about their journal's endorsement of the CONSORT recommendations and their incorporation into editorial and peer review processes. RESULTS: Sixty-three journals of TCM from China were examined. Of these, only three (5%) and one (2%) of the 63 journals mentioned the CONSORT statement and extension papers, respectively, in their IFA. Fifty-four of 63 (86%) of surveyed journals responded, with the majority of respondents being editors. Only 20% (11/54) of the respondents reported that they had any knowledge of the CONSORT statement. Only 6% (3/54) of the editors reported that they required authors to comply with the CONSORT statement or that they incorporated it into their peer review and editorial processes. CONCLUSIONS: TCM journals in China endorsing the CONSORT statement constituted a small percentage of the total. The majority of editors surveyed were not familiar with the content of the CONSORT statement and extension papers. We strongly recommend that the China Periodicals Association issue a policy to promote the endorsement of the CONSORT statement and conduct relevant training for journal editors in China.
Assuntos
Guias como Assunto , Jornalismo Médico/normas , Medicina Tradicional Chinesa , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , China , Políticas Editoriais , Humanos , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosAssuntos
Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências/organização & administração , Jornalismo Médico/normas , Musicoterapia/organização & administração , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Humanos , Comunicação Interdisciplinar , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Controle de Qualidade , Projetos de PesquisaAssuntos
Alergia e Imunologia , Políticas Editoriais , Homeopatia , Jornalismo Médico , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Alergia e Imunologia/ética , Alergia e Imunologia/história , Alergia e Imunologia/normas , Temas Bioéticos , Pesquisa Biomédica/ética , Pesquisa Biomédica/história , Pesquisa Biomédica/métodos , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Análise Ética , História do Século XX , História do Século XXI , Humanos , Jornalismo Médico/história , Jornalismo Médico/normas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/ética , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/história , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/tendências , Má Conduta CientíficaRESUMO
Forty-five complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) efficacy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from high-impact medical journals (NEJM, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Archives of Internal Medicine) were reviewed based on their meeting three validity criteria (the existence of a placebo control, moderate attrition rates, and 50 or more participants per group). Of the 26 efficacy trials meeting all three criteria, only 2 (7.7%) were judged to be positive (i.e., the alternative therapy was significantly superior to its placebo control), while over half (55.5%) of the 19 trials that failed to meet one or more of these criteria reported positive results (p < .001). Of the two positive high-validity trials, one was funded and authored by the herbal company marketing the product tested and one used a placebo-control group of questionable credibility. This analysis is consistent with the hypothesis that CAM therapies are no more effective than placebos when adequate experimental control is present.
Assuntos
Terapias Complementares/normas , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , Terapias Complementares/métodos , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Humanos , Jornalismo Médico/normas , Efeito Placebo , Reprodutibilidade dos TestesRESUMO
CONTEXT: Previous research suggests that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) journals publish few clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses and a high proportion of positive articles. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the content of major CAM journals in 2005 and compares key findings with secondary data from previous years. DESIGN: PubMed-indexed CAM journals publishing in 2005 were identified using the search term "(alternative OR complementary) AND medicine." Review journals were excluded. All 2005 issues of the included journals were obtained and articles read. Articles were coded according to predefined criteria regarding the type of publication, area of CAM, and whether the outcome was positive, negative, or open. For comparison purposes, secondary data from 1995 and 2000 were obtained from previous research. RESULTS: Six journals publishing in 2005 (363 articles) were coded. Two datasets were produced, one excluding and one including recently established journals (2005a and 2005b, respectively). Proportionally fewer articles were clinical trials in 2005 (2005a=22.1%; 2005b=18.5%) than in 2000 (22.7%) and 1995 (27.7%). More than 50% of the 2005 articles were positive (2005a=51.1%; 2005b=50.7%), compared with 55.9% in 1995 and 43.5% in 2000. CONCLUSIONS: There is an apparent shift away from effectiveness research in CAM journals. This requires further investigation, and comparisons with other journals are needed. The large proportion of positive articles published in CAM journals appears to not adequately reflect the best available effectiveness evidence. This has implications for those using CAM journals as their main source of information in this area.