z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Randomized controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine published in English from 2010 to 2019: a bibliometrics study
Author(s) -
Jing Hu,
Huina Zhang,
Shuo Feng,
Yanxiang Ha,
Chongyang Wei,
Xuejiao Wang,
Rui Zhang,
Bo Li
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
annals of palliative medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2224-5839
pISSN - 2224-5820
DOI - 10.21037/apm-20-1033
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , medline , bibliometrics , cochrane library , adverse effect , placebo , alternative medicine , meta analysis , traditional medicine , family medicine , sample size determination , traditional chinese medicine , data mining , pathology , statistics , mathematics , political science , computer science , law
BACKGROUNDAs the use of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in the international market increases, the number of clinical studies including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CHM which published in international journals has also increased. Using bibliometrics, we systematically and comprehensively analyzed the research status of CHM RCTs published in English during the period of 2010 to 2019.METHODSElectronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were undertaken. CHM RCTs published in English between January 2010 and December 2019 were included. We randomly selected 20% from the eligible articles. Descriptive statistical analysis was carried out by extracting information on general information, characteristics of the study participants, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias assessment of included RCTs.RESULTSTwo hundred and twenty-seven CHM RCTs published in English were included in our study. Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine was the journal which published most of the relevant papers (22.0%). A total of 45,774 participants were included, sample size ranged from 12 to 3,143 (median: 115). The most common disease was the circulatory diseases (n=36, 15.9%). Decoction was the most common dosage form (28.2%), and "CHM vs. placebo" was the most common type of control (36.1%). The median of the total number of outcomes was 4 (range: 1-14), 92 (40.5%) did not clearly specify any primary outcome, 56 (24.7%) did not report any adverse event, 41 (18.1%) and 68 (30.0%) reported traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)- specific outcomes and quality of life, respectively. Eighty-five (37.4%) did not report sufficient information about the random sequence generation process, 100 (44.1%) used the adequate allocation concealment, 92 (40.5%) blinded participants and key study personnel, and 24 (10.6%) blinded outcome assessors.CONCLUSIONSOur results provided insight into the research status regarding CHM RCTs published in English during the past decade, this study may be helpful in understanding research trends in this field.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom