Quality evaluation of the literature on clinical randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine for treatment of gastric precancerous lesions in the past 20 years. / ä¸­åŒ»è¯æ²»ç–—èƒƒç™Œå‰ç— å˜ä¸´åºŠéšæœºå¯¹ç §è¯•éªŒäºŒåå¹´æ–‡çŒ®è´¨é‡è¯„ä»·.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicines for the treatment of gastric precancerous lesions in the past 20 years. METHODS: The RCTs on traditional Chinese medicines for gastric precancerous lesions were searched from the CNKI, Wanfang database, VIP, PubMed, and Embase from January 2001 to December 2021. The retrieved articles were screened, extracted and evaluated based on the 2010 edition of CONSORT statement, Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Scale and additional evaluation indicators. RESULTS: A total of 840 papers were included. According to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Scale, the high risk of bias in the application of randomized methods was 5.95%; the risk of uncertainty for the allocation scheme concealment was 98.93%; the risk of uncertainty for blinding of patients or testers was 98.69%; the risk of uncertainty for blinding of the outcome assessor was 100.00%; the risk of bias for completeness of the outcome data was 2.86%; and the risk of uncertainty for selective reporting was 98.45%. The CONSORT statement evaluating the quality of reporting showed that 100.00% of the RCT articles reported the 8 entries; 36.79% of the literature mentioned the method of randomized sequence generation, but only 27.62% of the literature mentioned who implemented the randomized program, 1.07% of the literature hid the randomized program and 1.31% of the studies were blinded; 36.67% of the literature reported adverse reactions; no literature reported sample size prediction methods. Additional evaluation indicators showed that 17.02% of the studies had ethical approval; 43.81% of the literature specified Chinese medicine evidence; 16.55% of the studies excluded severe heterotrophic hyperplasia; 7.26% of the studies conducted follow-up; and 65.12% of the literature used composite efficacy indicators; 46.67% of the literature applied pathological histological evaluation; 2.62% of the literature applied quality of life evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The overall risk of bias in RCTs of traditional Chinese medicines for gastric precancerous lesions is high, and the quality of most of the study reports needs to be improved. In the future, it is necessary to strengthen the study design of RCTs and refer to appropriate traditional Chinese medicines evidence grading standards, select study protocols according to different purposes, provide objective and strong evidence for clinical studies on traditional Chinese medicines, and carry out clinical study design and result reporting suitable for traditional Chinese medicines according to the CONSORT principle.