Dataset Information

The Use of Multiple Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Chinese Herbal Medicine.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Multiple primary outcomes are commonly used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM). Analysis and interpretation of the results of CHM RCTs with many outcomes are not clear. No previous studies have systematically assessed the use of multiple primary outcomes in this area. This study aimed to assess the reporting of multiple primary outcomes and the statistical methods used to adjust multiplicity in RCTs of CHM.

Methods

Search for RCTs of CHM published in English between January 2010 and December 2019 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was undertaken. We randomly selected 20% of the included RCTs as the analyzing sample of this study. The number of multiple primary outcomes, the methods used to adjust the multiplicity in statistical analysis and sample size estimate, and the trial information were collected. For RCTs that adopted multiple primary outcomes without the multiplicity adjustment, we used Bonferroni correction to adjust.

Results

227 CHM RCTs were included in our study. 92 (40.5%) failed to report what their primary outcome was. Of 135 (59.5%) RCTs that reported primary outcome, 93 (68.9%) reported one and 42 (31.1%) reported more than one primary outcome (range 2-5). Of 42 RCTs that reported multiple primary outcomes, only 5 adjusted for multiple outcomes. If multiplicity had been accounted for using Bonferroni correction, 10 (37.0%) RCTs that reported a significant result had demonstrated a nonsignificant result, giving the adjusted P value. Only one of the 42 RCTs calculated sample size based on multiple primary outcomes. Adopting multiple primary outcomes showed a slow growth trend with the publication year. The proportion of primary outcome reported explicitly in RCTs was different in terms of the nationality of the first author (P=0.004), in which mainland China has the lowest proportion (55.8%). The highest percentage of the studies with primary outcome reporting explicitation was mental and behavioural disorders (83.3%), and the most frequently adopting multiple primary outcomes were studies on the disease of the nervous system (66.7%). The percentage of reporting primary outcome explicitly was associated with sample size (P < 0.001); for the percentage of RCTs adopting multiple primary outcomes, there was no statistically significant difference (P=0.739).

Conclusions

Multiple primary outcomes are prevalent in CHM RCTs. However, appropriate methods are not usually taken in most of the analyses to safeguard the inferences against multiplicity. Sample size estimation based on multiple primary outcomes is still lacking. These issues complicate the interpretability of trial results and can lead to spurious conclusions. Guidelines to improve analyzing and reporting for multiple primary outcomes in CHM RCTs are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Hu J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8081594 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common non-traumatic disabling disease affecting young adults. A definitive curative treatment is currently unavailable. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) on MS. Because of the uncertain quality of these RCTs, the recommendations for routine use of CHM for MS remain inconclusive. The comprehensive evaluation of the quality of RCTs of CHM for MS is urgent.MethodsNine databases, namely, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Sinomed, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and VIP Database, were searched from inception to September 2023. RCTs comparing CHM with placebo or pharmacological interventions for MS were considered eligible. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and its extension for CHM formulas (CONSORT-CHM Formulas) checklists were used to evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The selection criteria of high-frequency herbs for MS were those with cumulative frequency over 50% among the top-ranked herbs.ResultsA total of 25 RCTs were included. In the included RCTs, 33% of the CONSORT items and 21% of the CONSORT-CHM Formulas items were reported. Eligibility title, sample size calculation, allocation concealment, randomized implementation, and blinded description in CONSORT core items were reported by less than 5% of trials. For the CONSORT-CHM Formulas, the source and authentication method of each CHM ingredient was particularly poorly reported. Most studies classified the risk of bias as "unclear" due to insufficient information. The top five most frequently used herbs were, in order, Radix Rehmanniae Preparata, Radix Rehmanniae Recens, Herba Epimedii, Scorpio, and Poria. No serious adverse effect had been reported.ConclusionsThe low reporting of CONSORT items and the unclear risk of bias indicate the inadequate quality of RCTs in terms of reporting completeness and result validity. The CONSORT-CHM Formulas appropriately consider the unique characteristics of CHM, including principles, formulas, and Chinese medicinal substances. To improve the quality of RCTs on CHM for MS, researchers should adhere more closely to CONSORT-CHM Formulas guidelines and ensure comprehensive disclosure of all study design elements.

Project description:Background: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) provides a theoretical basis for the treatment of psoriasis with considerable benefits and a low toxicity. The purpose of this quantitative study was to show high-quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of CHM for the treatment of psoriasis to promote its clinical application. Methods: Several databases were systematically searched including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journals Database, and Wan Fang Database. High-quality randomized controlled trials that compared CHM with non-CHM interventions were included. The RevMan5.3 software was used to calculate risk ratios (RR) at 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conduct the meta-analysis. Results: Altogether, 1,215 patients participated in this study, including 711 in the experimental group and 504 in the control group. The psoriasis area severity index (PASI) score of the CHM group was significantly lower than that of the placebo group (MD, -4.02; 95% CI, -6.71 to -1.34; p = 0.003). To achieve PASI-60 and PASI-75, the arrival rate of the CHM group was higher than that of the placebo group (PASI-60: RR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.17 to 10.61; p = 0.03; PASI-75: RR, 9.87; 95% CI, 3.11 to 31.31; p = 0.0001). Furthermore, the efficacy rate was higher in patients receiving CHM than in those receiving placebo (RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.93; p = 0.04). The results suggested a greater impact of CHM in improving the dermatology life quality index (DLQI) of patients (MD, -2.12; 95% CI, -3.75 to -0.49; p = 0.01). Regarding pruritus severity, there was no significant difference between the two groups (MD, -1.90; 95% CI, -3.79 to -0.01; p = 0.05). The meta-analysis revealed that the recurrence rate (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.71; p = 0.48) and proportion of adverse events (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.93; p = 0.09) associated with using CHM were similar to those associated with using a placebo. Conclusion: CHM appears safe and effective in the treatment of psoriasis and has a great positive impact on the DQLI of patients; however, CHM could not completely eliminate skin lesions, improve pruritus severity, and reduce the recurrence rate.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The studies on the effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) in treating liver fibrosis (LF) were not consistent. This study aims to systematically review the effectiveness of CHM on treating LF patients. METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, TCMOnline, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Chinese Medical Current Contents were searched up to March 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving LF patients receiving CHM, Western medicine, combined CHM and Western medicine compared with placebo, Western medicine or no intervention were included. LF markers including serum hyaluronic acid (HA), laminin (LN), procollagen type III (PC-III), type IV collagen (IV-C), matrix metalloproteinase (MMP), and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinase (TIMP) were measured as primary outcomes. Liver biochemistry, including alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartarte aminotransferase (AST), and improvement of related clinical symptoms were measured as secondary outcomes. Risk of bias of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs with 2123 participants were analyzed in subgroups of types of comparison and study quality. Fifteen studies were graded as good quality. CHM alone and combined with Western medicine showed significant improvements in HA, LN, PC-III and IV-C compared with Western medicine alone. However, there were no significant differences observed between CHM and placebo treatments. CONCLUSION: The current inconclusive results in determining the effectiveness of CHM treatment on LF, due to the poor methodological quality and high heterogeneity of the studies, suggests that large RCTs using standardized Chinese medicine syndrome diagnosis and CHM formulae with longer follow-up are required for further evaluation.