LAUSR

BACKGROUND The majority of studies of integrative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) have been published in Chinese journals. These studies indicate potential benefits, but concerns have been raised over the quality of trials published in Chinese journals. The CONSORT statement provides a guide for study reporting that has been endorsed by more than 400 international journals. Previous studies have used the CONSORT checklist to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES This study focused on RCTs of integrative and traditional medicine for CRC published in Chinese journals and assessed: (1) the overall quality of reporting with a focus on methodological aspects; (2) change over time; and (3) the influence of study funding, level of institution conducting the trial, rank of the journal, and the length of the article. DESIGN Searches of seven databases identified RCTs. Quality was assessed using CONSORT 2010 with adaptations to facilitate scoring. Additional codes were added for publication year, hospital rank, report length, and status of the journal. Scores of each checklist item, total scores, and scores for eight items associated with RCT methodology were calculated. RESULTS Eighty-one studies were included in the main analyses. The RCT methodology subgroup scores were significantly higher in studies: with public funding, conducted by authors from university hospitals, published in higher ranked journals, and in longer articles. CONCLUSIONS Few Chinese journals mention CONSORT in their author guidelines. In these RCTs on CRC better reporting of RCT methodology was associated with ranking of the journal as "core," public funding of the RCT, and first or correspondent author from a university hospital but the quality of reporting had not significantly improved in 15 years. As the volume of scientific information produced in China grows, it is imperative that there is growth in the quality of this information.