Skip to main content

Table 5 Reporting quality of 9 items of CHM-related information (n = 109 SRs)

From: Reporting quality of Cochrane systematic reviews with Chinese herbal medicines

Category

Item

Specifics

Yes, n (%)

Title

1. Title

Specific name of CHM intervention

44 (40.4)

Generalized name of CHM interventiona

58 (53.2)

The name of multiple interventions including CHMb

7 (6.4)

Introduction

2. Rationale

TCM-related theoryc

67 (61.5)

Methods

3. Information source

Chinese databased

88 (80.7)

Chinese medical journals (hand-search)

23 (21.1)

Chinese pharmaceutical company publications (hand-search)

3 (2.8)

No Chinese database or journals reported

18 (16.5)

4. Eligibility criteria for participants

Included TCM pattern/syndrome diagnosis criteria

2 (1.8)

5. Eligibility criteria for outcomes

Included TCM-related outcomes

4 (3.7)

6.Additional analyses

Considered CHM-specific characteristics

47 (43.1)

Results

7. Study characteristicse (n = 97)

For CHM interventions

 

Composition and dosage

59 (60.8)

Type of CHM

93 (95.9)

Dosage form

84 (86.6)

Source of CHM

12 (12.4)

Administration route

89 (91.8)

Time of administration

95 (97.9)

Quality control of CHM

2 (2.1)

For control groups

 

Adequate reporting

40 (41.2)

8. Synthesis of resultsf

(n = 85)

Meta-analyses were properly conductedg

23 (27.1)

Discussion

9. Summary of evidence and limitations

Included the TCM theories

32 (29.4)

  1. aSuch as “Chinese herbal medicines,” “herbal medicines,” “herbal preparations,” “medicinal herbs,” “traditional Chinese medicine herbs,” etc.
  2. bSuch as “Interventions,” “Complementary therapies,” etc. CHM interventions were included in the full-texts
  3. cFor Cochrane SRs, the “Introduction” refers to the “Background”
  4. dSpecific calculation: one database (13 SRs), two databases (13 SRs), three databases (14 SRs), four databases (17 SRs), five databases (16 SRs), six databases (8 SRs), seven databases (1 SR), eight databases (1 SR), ten databases (1 SR)
  5. eBecause 12 SRs included no RCTs (as presented in Table 2), the percentage of “study characteristics” were based on the total number of 97. Take the first subitem (Composition and dosage) for example, 60.8% = 59/97
  6. fOf 109 included SRs, 85 had meta-analysis (as presented in Table 2). Thus, to calculate the proportion of this item, the percentage of records was based on the total number of 85. For example, 27.1% = 23/85
  7. gThe criteria of “properly conducted” was according to the homogeneity of the PICO (e.g. participant, intervention, comparison and outcome) information, especially the reporting quality of the details of CHM interventions and additional analyses provided as above. For example, if some of the CHM-related information was not reported (e.g., CHM composition, dosage, source or quality control information), it is impossible to assess whether the meta-analyses in the SRs were properly conducted or not